New homes bid at Tannery site (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
New homes bid at former Tannery site in Strensall
7:55am Thursday 14th March 2013 in News
By Mark Stead, Political Reporter
The former tannery at Sheriff Hutton Road, Strensall
The site of a former tannery, which has been hit by arson attacks and vandalism, could be turned into 53 new homes if the plans are approved.
David Wilson Homes wants to demolish the three-storey building on the Sheriff Hutton Road site, in Strensall, and replace it with two, three, four and five-bedroomed houses, saying the £5.24 million scheme will help to meet local housing needs.
The developers’ application, which also includes public open space, will be debated by City of York Council’s planning committee next Thursday.
However, it is facing opposition from Strensall Parish Council and a local ramblers’ group over concerns about a new footbridge for pedestrians and cyclists over the River Foss which is part of the scheme. The location of the bridge has been altered by the applicants since the original plans were submitted.
Planning officers have recommended they should be allowed to approve the scheme once certain issues are addressed.
The site’s previous owners were granted permission for a business park in 2004, but the development did not happen, and David Wilson Homes has said the work would create 43 construction jobs and bring £865,000 a year into the local economy.
Local residents have previously called for the former tannery to be redeveloped after five arson attacks between 2005 and 2008 and a spate of anti-social behaviour.
However, when the new plans were revealed, the parish council said it did not believe the footbridge was in a suitable location and East Yorkshire and Derwent Area Ramblers has also aired concerns about the bridge.
The River Foss Society said the bridge might affect the setting of the nearby listed John Carr Bridge which is the jewel in Strensall’s crown.
A report by council planner Victoria Bell said: “The principle of the bridge and proposed location are considered to be acceptable, and the access it provides to shops and other village facilities makes the site a sustainable location for development.
“Without the bridge, the site would not be considered sustainable as pedestrian access is not safe over the current bridge. It is considered that redevelopment of derelict land for residential use outweighs the negative impact to the setting.”
Comments(6)
pedalling paul
says...
9:49am Thu 14 Mar 13
Too many suburbanites are fond of jumping into the car for short local journeys. Try pedalling to the newsagents for a Sunday paper, instead. You'll get a warm glow with a free red nose as well.
Mulgrave
says...
10:38am Thu 14 Mar 13
pedalling paul wrote:I always walk for that sort of journey. It is interesting to note, after describing a problem I witnessed first hand for the many years I lived within yards of this proposed development, the answer is,as always is get on your bike.
Not anti-car use but pro-neccessary car use. By encouraging transfer of some journeys to other travel options, there will be more capacity for those who need to use a car.
Too many suburbanites are fond of jumping into the car for short local journeys. Try pedalling to the newsagents for a Sunday paper, instead. You'll get a warm glow with a free red nose as well.
I recall a CoYC campaign about a year ago which equated 2 or more people in a car as 'intelligent' with the obvious inference for a sole occupant. At the time I was making regular solo car journeys with tools and materials to do a days work in Goole, so would have failed the intelligence test. However two people taking a car into the centre for a spot of lunch would have passed with flying colours. That is not pro-neccessary car use, or perhaps I should buy a van and not use an estate car for such 'non approved' purposes?
As an aside, myself and neighbours once picked up a parked car and moved it after the bus had been held up for 15 minutes. A major part of the problem is the popularity of Tesco Express, but planning permission was not needed for this as the use was previously retail. The store on the old petrol station site in Huntington shows what would have been required in the way of provision for deliveries and customer parking for that type of store.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
1:49pm Thu 14 Mar 13
neutral observer 2
says...
4:02pm Thu 14 Mar 13
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:You are a gem.
Barratt's will no doubt be hoping for a green light on the planning decision, after their MD brown-nosed the Get York Building board by endorsing their affordable housing targets.
So the positive news of building 53 houses and creating jobs. No mention of "can't do because of affordable houses". Turns into an attack on a company md for 'brown nosing'.
You sir are a ©°#k !
Good luck with the "reseach".
I'll be in the Half Moon Saturday evening if your back from your Leeds Utd thugery and you want to chat further.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
10:03pm Thu 14 Mar 13
neutral observer 2 wrote:You have got the wrong person honey bunch, I don't support Leeds Utd. I like opera and ballet.
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:You are a gem.
Barratt's will no doubt be hoping for a green light on the planning decision, after their MD brown-nosed the Get York Building board by endorsing their affordable housing targets.
So the positive news of building 53 houses and creating jobs. No mention of "can't do because of affordable houses". Turns into an attack on a company md for 'brown nosing'.
You sir are a ©°#k !
Good luck with the "reseach".
I'll be in the Half Moon Saturday evening if your back from your Leeds Utd thugery and you want to chat further.
I'll gladly come for a chat though, as my mate and his son own the pub. I used towork for their family who have another business in the village.
Wear something distinctive, like a pink tutu, so I can recognise you, on our blind date. Will I need protection, as I believe in safe #@* !!!!
Mulgrave says...
8:27am Thu 14 Mar 13
Paradoxically it is actually car parking that is required in this area. I wonder over the years how many passengers along the route of the number 5 service to York have cursed delays in its appearance. The reason was most probably the bus was stuck in the middle of the village which is narrow with poor sight lines and serves as the Tesco Express car park as well as other businesses and residents parking.
Many vehicles use Strensall from outlying villages and farms and the centre is a fair way from the outer edges of the recent housing estates.
If there is a pedestrian bridge directly into the village centre, common sense would dictate that in this case the S106 requirement should be parking provision above the level required for the development itself.
It will be an interesting test to see if the CoYC anti-car dogma prevents this.