Strensall housing development in line for approval despite intense opposition

Members of the City of York Council planning committee visit the land at Strensall where Linden Homes want to build 102 homes

Members of the City of York Council planning committee visit the land at Strensall where Linden Homes want to build 102 homes

Updated in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Political Reporter

A £12.4 MILLION housing development next to a York common could be given the go-ahead today, despite intense local opposition.

The plans by Linden Homes North for 102 homes on grassland at Brecks Lane, in Strensall, have been recommended for approval when City of York Council’s planning committee meets, but 122 residents, one of the city’s MPs, a parish council and the area’s city councillor say it should be rejected.

They claim applying to build on a green belt site is “premature” because York’s Local Plan development blueprint is still in its early stages and has not been approved by the Government, and brownfield sites should be developed first.

Opponents also say the scheme is too large. They claim Strensall’s roads, schools and local services will not be able to cope, the land is prone to flooding and the area has seen too much development in the last 40 years.

The site is 500 yards away from Strensall Common, which is designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Conservation Area. Yorkshire Wildlife Trust said the development could put “extra pressure” on the common and those living there should be reminded of its importance.

The trust also says while Linden Homes North should pay for more wardens, dog-mess bins and education events. Natural England has not raised any conservation concerns.

In a report, council planner Diane Cragg said that as the site was within York’s currently unofficial green belt, “very special circumstances” would be needed for it to be built on. She said this requirement was met by York’s need for housing land and affordable homes.

In addition, the site had been earmarked for potential development in the past, and developing it would not conflict with national planning policy on protecting the countryside from “encroachment”.

Linden Homes North has said the scheme would make “a significant contribution” to meeting housing demand in York, boost the local economy by about £2 million a year, create 80 jobs a year during construction and provide public open space, and “the harm arising from the development is small”. If permission is granted, work would start soon and be finished by mid-2017.

Among the objectors are York Outer MP Julian Sturdy and Strensall councillor Paul Doughty, while Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council said Strensall was “a village not a town” and lacked “many basic facilities and infrastructure to support the current number of residents”.

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:37am Thu 20 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

The stated reasons and benefits and how they meet "objectives" in planning applications and other official schemes are a guaranteed source of hilarity. This does not disappoint:- bearing in mind the location, apparently it will "provide public open space". Who ever wrote that really needs to think about their career and what has gone so wrong!
The stated reasons and benefits and how they meet "objectives" in planning applications and other official schemes are a guaranteed source of hilarity. This does not disappoint:- bearing in mind the location, apparently it will "provide public open space". Who ever wrote that really needs to think about their career and what has gone so wrong! Mulgrave
  • Score: -6

8:39am Thu 20 Feb 14

Grey Lady says...

In view of recent bad weather and extensive flooding, as this site is prone to flooding it shouldn't be built on. There is also the chance that building on this land could impact the nearby site of special scientific interest.
In view of recent bad weather and extensive flooding, as this site is prone to flooding it shouldn't be built on. There is also the chance that building on this land could impact the nearby site of special scientific interest. Grey Lady
  • Score: -8

8:58am Thu 20 Feb 14

digendelve says...

well the council turned up to view the site without suitable footwear and due to the flooding were unable to view the whole site, which proves they have no intention of taking any objections seriously and the open spaces they say are planned mean that all the houses have tiny gardens. The local school already has portokabins as classrooms and if you try and get a Dr's appointment on the same day you are sent to Stamford Bridge. All in all the development is too big and of no benefit to a small village. but what does that matter as long as the council fill the housing quota? And don't even get me started on the traffic and flooding problems!
well the council turned up to view the site without suitable footwear and due to the flooding were unable to view the whole site, which proves they have no intention of taking any objections seriously and the open spaces they say are planned mean that all the houses have tiny gardens. The local school already has portokabins as classrooms and if you try and get a Dr's appointment on the same day you are sent to Stamford Bridge. All in all the development is too big and of no benefit to a small village. but what does that matter as long as the council fill the housing quota? And don't even get me started on the traffic and flooding problems! digendelve
  • Score: 0

9:02am Thu 20 Feb 14

digendelve says...

Mulgrave wrote:
The stated reasons and benefits and how they meet "objectives" in planning applications and other official schemes are a guaranteed source of hilarity. This does not disappoint:- bearing in mind the location, apparently it will "provide public open space". Who ever wrote that really needs to think about their career and what has gone so wrong!
your right, it already 'provides a public open space' and without any houses being built on it.
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: The stated reasons and benefits and how they meet "objectives" in planning applications and other official schemes are a guaranteed source of hilarity. This does not disappoint:- bearing in mind the location, apparently it will "provide public open space". Who ever wrote that really needs to think about their career and what has gone so wrong![/p][/quote]your right, it already 'provides a public open space' and without any houses being built on it. digendelve
  • Score: -7

10:08am Thu 20 Feb 14

Black Fox says...

City of York Council is at risk of losing their way. Blinded by relentless Government pressure to meet unachievable new housing targets they have all the excuses they need to justify approving an application to build on a flooded parcel of greenbelt.

It's not as if there is a shortage of undeveloped Brownfield sites across the city.

David Wilson Homes and Daniel Gath are currently building in excess of 70 new homes in Strensall with a further application for another 60 homes to be submitted next month, again on Greenbelt.

Strensall is already over capacity. If this application is approved then CoYC will have let the residents of Strensall with Towthorpe down. No longer will it be a village but a town.
City of York Council is at risk of losing their way. Blinded by relentless Government pressure to meet unachievable new housing targets they have all the excuses they need to justify approving an application to build on a flooded parcel of greenbelt. It's not as if there is a shortage of undeveloped Brownfield sites across the city. David Wilson Homes and Daniel Gath are currently building in excess of 70 new homes in Strensall with a further application for another 60 homes to be submitted next month, again on Greenbelt. Strensall is already over capacity. If this application is approved then CoYC will have let the residents of Strensall with Towthorpe down. No longer will it be a village but a town. Black Fox
  • Score: -3

10:44am Thu 20 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

I've heard of schemes in other cities where they have investigated the effects before building and applied such conditions as "you can build a new estate but we want a new school built or extension and new road network..."

to simply approve it without any of these conditions is poor negotiating really. It could prove to be a really poor investment for the contractor. People will be aware of the flooding etc and this will have a huge effect on their desirability as will the over capacity in local schools etc... its loose loose really.
I've heard of schemes in other cities where they have investigated the effects before building and applied such conditions as "you can build a new estate but we want a new school built or extension and new road network..." to simply approve it without any of these conditions is poor negotiating really. It could prove to be a really poor investment for the contractor. People will be aware of the flooding etc and this will have a huge effect on their desirability as will the over capacity in local schools etc... its loose loose really. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -10

10:58am Thu 20 Feb 14

Black Fox says...

CoYC have said that the developer must contribute £330,000 (s106) to the local Robert Wilkinson primary school. The problem is the school is the second largest primary school in York and is already at max capacity.

This money is to provide an extra 26 primary school places and only 1 extra secondary school place at Huntington School.

26 extra places is a whole class. With an extra class you need a larger assembly hall (already too small to accommodate all the children), a larger dining hall (lunch is split over two hours in an effort to be able to feed everyone) and of course the extra resources needed to teach all of the extra children.

You can hear CoYC and Linden Homes now - "let's chuck a bag of cash at the school to fulfil the s106 requirement and to hell with what is actually best for the provision of long term sustainable education".

The school needs to be extended before the planning application is built and occupied.

Not to worry though, the school is in a conservation area so no doubt the planning committee will have no qualms about approving an extension!
CoYC have said that the developer must contribute £330,000 (s106) to the local Robert Wilkinson primary school. The problem is the school is the second largest primary school in York and is already at max capacity. This money is to provide an extra 26 primary school places and only 1 extra secondary school place at Huntington School. 26 extra places is a whole class. With an extra class you need a larger assembly hall (already too small to accommodate all the children), a larger dining hall (lunch is split over two hours in an effort to be able to feed everyone) and of course the extra resources needed to teach all of the extra children. You can hear CoYC and Linden Homes now - "let's chuck a bag of cash at the school to fulfil the s106 requirement and to hell with what is actually best for the provision of long term sustainable education". The school needs to be extended before the planning application is built and occupied. Not to worry though, the school is in a conservation area so no doubt the planning committee will have no qualms about approving an extension! Black Fox
  • Score: -13

2:21pm Thu 20 Feb 14

digendelve says...

Black Fox wrote:
CoYC have said that the developer must contribute £330,000 (s106) to the local Robert Wilkinson primary school. The problem is the school is the second largest primary school in York and is already at max capacity.

This money is to provide an extra 26 primary school places and only 1 extra secondary school place at Huntington School.

26 extra places is a whole class. With an extra class you need a larger assembly hall (already too small to accommodate all the children), a larger dining hall (lunch is split over two hours in an effort to be able to feed everyone) and of course the extra resources needed to teach all of the extra children.

You can hear CoYC and Linden Homes now - "let's chuck a bag of cash at the school to fulfil the s106 requirement and to hell with what is actually best for the provision of long term sustainable education".

The school needs to be extended before the planning application is built and occupied.

Not to worry though, the school is in a conservation area so no doubt the planning committee will have no qualms about approving an extension!
Totally agree, the 'one off' payment does nothing to future proof against rising school numbers it's just to make them look as if they care.
[quote][p][bold]Black Fox[/bold] wrote: CoYC have said that the developer must contribute £330,000 (s106) to the local Robert Wilkinson primary school. The problem is the school is the second largest primary school in York and is already at max capacity. This money is to provide an extra 26 primary school places and only 1 extra secondary school place at Huntington School. 26 extra places is a whole class. With an extra class you need a larger assembly hall (already too small to accommodate all the children), a larger dining hall (lunch is split over two hours in an effort to be able to feed everyone) and of course the extra resources needed to teach all of the extra children. You can hear CoYC and Linden Homes now - "let's chuck a bag of cash at the school to fulfil the s106 requirement and to hell with what is actually best for the provision of long term sustainable education". The school needs to be extended before the planning application is built and occupied. Not to worry though, the school is in a conservation area so no doubt the planning committee will have no qualms about approving an extension![/p][/quote]Totally agree, the 'one off' payment does nothing to future proof against rising school numbers it's just to make them look as if they care. digendelve
  • Score: -14

4:54pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Mr. Marcus says...

Dismiss York Council planning department as they lack common sense.
They ignore the public every time.
Dismiss York Council planning department as they lack common sense. They ignore the public every time. Mr. Marcus
  • Score: -18

6:31pm Thu 20 Feb 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

This idea is daft enough to actually b accepted. Less rain but still more floods the outcome.
This idea is daft enough to actually b accepted. Less rain but still more floods the outcome. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -37

7:58pm Thu 20 Feb 14

ouseswimmer says...

I guess the 50% social housing will be built on the area which floods?
I guess the 50% social housing will be built on the area which floods? ouseswimmer
  • Score: -28

8:00pm Thu 20 Feb 14

courier46 says...

Disgusting,listen to the people who have to live there!
Disgusting,listen to the people who have to live there! courier46
  • Score: -20

8:26pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Black Fox says...

Cllr Simpson-Laing and her puppets managed to swing the vote for approval, 9 votes to 7.

It seems the new draft Local Plan counts for nothing and is largely ignored, the same goes for greenbelt.

Build, build, build and to hell with those directly affected.

I'm amazed how political snipping took president over the genuine planning objections put forward; it was like an episode of David Dimbleby’s Question Time!
Cllr Simpson-Laing and her puppets managed to swing the vote for approval, 9 votes to 7. It seems the new draft Local Plan counts for nothing and is largely ignored, the same goes for greenbelt. Build, build, build and to hell with those directly affected. I'm amazed how political snipping took president over the genuine planning objections put forward; it was like an episode of David Dimbleby’s Question Time! Black Fox
  • Score: -15

8:28pm Thu 20 Feb 14

HoofHearteds says...

As usual the (Not in my back yard) whingers don't want other people to have housing. Ironically, it's in the outer ring road and a tory ward, promoted by osbornes false bubble of growth and subsidized by tax payers money with right to buy bribery.

Hard cheese lol
As usual the (Not in my back yard) whingers don't want other people to have housing. Ironically, it's in the outer ring road and a tory ward, promoted by osbornes false bubble of growth and subsidized by tax payers money with right to buy bribery. Hard cheese lol HoofHearteds
  • Score: 12

8:41pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Black Fox says...

The above comment sums up perfectly how political point scoring gets in the way of common sense, or in this case genuine planning objections that weren't addressed.
The above comment sums up perfectly how political point scoring gets in the way of common sense, or in this case genuine planning objections that weren't addressed. Black Fox
  • Score: -14

8:43pm Thu 20 Feb 14

digendelve says...

A victory for political dogma over common sense. An ill thought out application with unanswered questions has been approved by a council with Orwellian overtones.
A victory for political dogma over common sense. An ill thought out application with unanswered questions has been approved by a council with Orwellian overtones. digendelve
  • Score: -17

8:52pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
As usual the (Not in my back yard) whingers don't want other people to have housing. Ironically, it's in the outer ring road and a tory ward, promoted by osbornes false bubble of growth and subsidized by tax payers money with right to buy bribery.

Hard cheese lol
Utter garbage, I live miles away now and no skin off my nose, but in this VILLAGE it is a case of : we have already accommodated THOUSANDS of people in additional homes since the late 70's and that now means we have lost our right to say NO. I'd like to see you try to apply that logic to other more personal spheres of life!
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: As usual the (Not in my back yard) whingers don't want other people to have housing. Ironically, it's in the outer ring road and a tory ward, promoted by osbornes false bubble of growth and subsidized by tax payers money with right to buy bribery. Hard cheese lol[/p][/quote]Utter garbage, I live miles away now and no skin off my nose, but in this VILLAGE it is a case of : we have already accommodated THOUSANDS of people in additional homes since the late 70's and that now means we have lost our right to say NO. I'd like to see you try to apply that logic to other more personal spheres of life! Mulgrave
  • Score: -19

9:29pm Thu 20 Feb 14

HoofHearteds says...

The Right to Bribe Housing bubble will continue to inflate and expand until the 1015 General elections over. Then it will pop and this insane rush to build on land will ease back, because the developers will be getting no further tax payer funded propping up of the mortgages.

It wont stop until 2015/16 because it's all been tweaked to inflate and create happy home owners for the next election.
The Right to Bribe Housing bubble will continue to inflate and expand until the 1015 General elections over. Then it will pop and this insane rush to build on land will ease back, because the developers will be getting no further tax payer funded propping up of the mortgages. It wont stop until 2015/16 because it's all been tweaked to inflate and create happy home owners for the next election. HoofHearteds
  • Score: -24

9:39pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Black Fox says...

The current '2005 Local Plan' is said to carry little weight due to its age.

The new 'Draft Local Plan' is still going through consultation.

Being caught in-between the two plans means it is essentially a free for all.

The planning application for a further 60 homes in Strensall which is expected to be submitted next month will be interesting.

Tonight’s decision has now set a precedent for building on the greenbelt.
The current '2005 Local Plan' is said to carry little weight due to its age. The new 'Draft Local Plan' is still going through consultation. Being caught in-between the two plans means it is essentially a free for all. The planning application for a further 60 homes in Strensall which is expected to be submitted next month will be interesting. Tonight’s decision has now set a precedent for building on the greenbelt. Black Fox
  • Score: -21

8:07am Fri 21 Feb 14

digendelve says...

Laugh out loud! Someone actually took the time to make the scores minus. Don't think for one second it was more than one person. Minus all you like it wont get rid of the opposition.
Laugh out loud! Someone actually took the time to make the scores minus. Don't think for one second it was more than one person. Minus all you like it wont get rid of the opposition. digendelve
  • Score: -3

9:47am Fri 21 Feb 14

think! says...

Black Fox wrote:
The current '2005 Local Plan' is said to carry little weight due to its age.

The new 'Draft Local Plan' is still going through consultation.

Being caught in-between the two plans means it is essentially a free for all.

The planning application for a further 60 homes in Strensall which is expected to be submitted next month will be interesting.

Tonight’s decision has now set a precedent for building on the greenbelt.
This hardly sets a precedent. York Council approves housing in green belt and floodzone 2 and/or 3 all the time. Remember Derwenthorpe and Germany Beck? There are probably lots more sites around York. Even if York's Local Plans (draft version of 2005 and the draft emerging) cannot be accorded any weight the NPPF should be applied.
[quote][p][bold]Black Fox[/bold] wrote: The current '2005 Local Plan' is said to carry little weight due to its age. The new 'Draft Local Plan' is still going through consultation. Being caught in-between the two plans means it is essentially a free for all. The planning application for a further 60 homes in Strensall which is expected to be submitted next month will be interesting. Tonight’s decision has now set a precedent for building on the greenbelt.[/p][/quote]This hardly sets a precedent. York Council approves housing in green belt and floodzone 2 and/or 3 all the time. Remember Derwenthorpe and Germany Beck? There are probably lots more sites around York. Even if York's Local Plans (draft version of 2005 and the draft emerging) cannot be accorded any weight the NPPF should be applied. think!
  • Score: 3

10:16am Fri 21 Feb 14

Black Fox says...

In light of the recent events down south, the arguments put forward for the Germany Beck application being on a flood plain now seem a lot more real.
In light of the recent events down south, the arguments put forward for the Germany Beck application being on a flood plain now seem a lot more real. Black Fox
  • Score: 3

3:26pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Dr Robert says...

Well that is done and dusted then, the proposal plans have been recommended to pass to York Council, and going by Councillor Semlyen's thinking , the Public do not need consulting, That whole area is a quagmire due to a huge clay belt. I hope the new residents do not start moaning about their Sunday afternoons being spoilt by the sound of SA80 rifles and GPMGs being fired on nearby Strensall Army camp. It also looks like James Alexander has sent out the thumbs down signal to his Labour cronies looking at the scores above. Very childish one thinks.
Well that is done and dusted then, the proposal plans have been recommended to pass to York Council, and going by Councillor Semlyen's thinking , the Public do not need consulting, That whole area is a quagmire due to a huge clay belt. I hope the new residents do not start moaning about their Sunday afternoons being spoilt by the sound of SA80 rifles and GPMGs being fired on nearby Strensall Army camp. It also looks like James Alexander has sent out the thumbs down signal to his Labour cronies looking at the scores above. Very childish one thinks. Dr Robert
  • Score: -46

3:33pm Fri 21 Feb 14

meme says...

The 'local' plan will be thrown out again as York staff are incapable of doing it so it will pass. they manipulate figures and will always be found out when professionals get their hands on them.
|If they were honest they would stand a better chance of getting things right but they always think they know best!! and it costs us dearly
They don't want to consult as they don't get to hear what they want to
By the way why have comments been removed from the 20's plenty madwoman story? probably because the comments were not what she wanted to hear!!
The 'local' plan will be thrown out again as York staff are incapable of doing it so it will pass. they manipulate figures and will always be found out when professionals get their hands on them. |If they were honest they would stand a better chance of getting things right but they always think they know best!! and it costs us dearly They don't want to consult [see Ann Semlyn who's as democratic as I am communist!] as they don't get to hear what they want to By the way why have comments been removed from the 20's plenty madwoman story? probably because the comments were not what she wanted to hear!! meme
  • Score: -13

3:57pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

meme wrote:
The 'local' plan will be thrown out again as York staff are incapable of doing it so it will pass. they manipulate figures and will always be found out when professionals get their hands on them.
|If they were honest they would stand a better chance of getting things right but they always think they know best!! and it costs us dearly
They don't want to consult as they don't get to hear what they want to
By the way why have comments been removed from the 20's plenty madwoman story? probably because the comments were not what she wanted to hear!!
Yes - removing comments en bloc is not acceptable in a free press, the whole story plus comments went a few days ago regarding The Press story on the lack of use of Merretts charging points. Certainly remove abusive comments, but comments which may be highly critical or embarrassing to a Councillor or Council but are based on fact and represent the beliefs of the commenter are valid and should not be supressed.

If either of these cases have been removed at the requests of the featured individuals perhaps it has achieved something - How did you feel when you sent the emai/phoned The Press? Exactly- well that's how an increasing number of people feel everytime they are subject to you using your positions in the manner so typical of the last three years.
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: The 'local' plan will be thrown out again as York staff are incapable of doing it so it will pass. they manipulate figures and will always be found out when professionals get their hands on them. |If they were honest they would stand a better chance of getting things right but they always think they know best!! and it costs us dearly They don't want to consult [see Ann Semlyn who's as democratic as I am communist!] as they don't get to hear what they want to By the way why have comments been removed from the 20's plenty madwoman story? probably because the comments were not what she wanted to hear!![/p][/quote]Yes - removing comments en bloc is not acceptable in a free press, the whole story plus comments went a few days ago regarding The Press story on the lack of use of Merretts charging points. Certainly remove abusive comments, but comments which may be highly critical or embarrassing to a Councillor or Council but are based on fact and represent the beliefs of the commenter are valid and should not be supressed. If either of these cases have been removed at the requests of the featured individuals perhaps it has achieved something - How did you feel when you sent the emai/phoned The Press? Exactly- well that's how an increasing number of people feel everytime they are subject to you using your positions in the manner so typical of the last three years. Mulgrave
  • Score: -8

10:21pm Sat 22 Feb 14

digendelve says...

Dr Robert wrote:
Well that is done and dusted then, the proposal plans have been recommended to pass to York Council, and going by Councillor Semlyen's thinking , the Public do not need consulting, That whole area is a quagmire due to a huge clay belt. I hope the new residents do not start moaning about their Sunday afternoons being spoilt by the sound of SA80 rifles and GPMGs being fired on nearby Strensall Army camp. It also looks like James Alexander has sent out the thumbs down signal to his Labour cronies looking at the scores above. Very childish one thinks.
Ha agreed Dr Robert you can tell who they are as they haven't even got the decency (or the guts) to leave a message as to the reason why they have given the thumbs down. Lets remember the only people who approved this were the council and it seems they don't like it when we find our voices.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Robert[/bold] wrote: Well that is done and dusted then, the proposal plans have been recommended to pass to York Council, and going by Councillor Semlyen's thinking , the Public do not need consulting, That whole area is a quagmire due to a huge clay belt. I hope the new residents do not start moaning about their Sunday afternoons being spoilt by the sound of SA80 rifles and GPMGs being fired on nearby Strensall Army camp. It also looks like James Alexander has sent out the thumbs down signal to his Labour cronies looking at the scores above. Very childish one thinks.[/p][/quote]Ha agreed Dr Robert you can tell who they are as they haven't even got the decency (or the guts) to leave a message as to the reason why they have given the thumbs down. Lets remember the only people who approved this were the council and it seems they don't like it when we find our voices. digendelve
  • Score: 3

10:23am Fri 28 Feb 14

anistasia says...

Council again pushing through plans against people wishes. It happening here and Germany beck if these houses are built hope nobody buys them because of flooding issues and not being able to get insurance.will the builders want to build unsellable housing.only then the council may use them to put people off the housing waiting list into them.another unpopular decision by the dictative council.
Council again pushing through plans against people wishes. It happening here and Germany beck if these houses are built hope nobody buys them because of flooding issues and not being able to get insurance.will the builders want to build unsellable housing.only then the council may use them to put people off the housing waiting list into them.another unpopular decision by the dictative council. anistasia
  • Score: 2

1:49pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Black Fox says...

City of York Council is being tasked by the Government to build a huge quota of houses to meet the needs of an ever expanding population.

To achieve this they aren't prepared to let a few defiant locals get in their way.

They are a law to themselves and to hell with the rest of us.
City of York Council is being tasked by the Government to build a huge quota of houses to meet the needs of an ever expanding population. To achieve this they aren't prepared to let a few defiant locals get in their way. They are a law to themselves and to hell with the rest of us. Black Fox
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree