Report this comment
  • "I think you have the wrong Cllr . I think this is Cllr John Mackman hiding behind his wife’s apron. The statement “sounds” just like him. But as Cllr Mr Mackman is executive member for Place shaping it would be wrong for him to comment."
  • This field is mandatory
  • This field is mandatory

  • Please note we will not accept reports with HTML tags or URLs in them.


  • Enter the above word in the box below

Please be fair, courteous and respectful to the views of others so we can build a vibrant community in a safe online environment. You are personal liable for your comments and action will be taken against anyone who offends, ridicules or posts malicious and damaging views. If you wish to complain, please contact us.

South Milford homes scheme set for approval

8:30am Monday 30th April 2012 in Selby & Tadcaster Photograph of the Author By Mike Laycock , Chief reporter

MAJOR plans to build more than 100 new homes in a village near Selby have been recommended for approval this week, despite claims from a councillor that approval would be “ill-conceived and perverse”.

The scheme to build 115 new houses on land close to Southlands Close, South Milford, have been recommended to be granted approval in a report to go before the planning committee of Selby District Council on Wednesday.

But the site has also been earmarked as a preferred option for the controversial Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD), which has for more than a year looked at potential sites for new developments, including a gipsy and traveller site around the district.

Coun Carol Mackman objected to the development on behalf of local residents, saying: “This application is premature in view of the emerging Site Allocations Development Plan Document which has now reached the preferred options stage.

“As this site has been included in the SADPD as a potential preferred option it would be premature and obtuse to release it now as the site is included in the SADPD statutory process which has not yet been concluded. It would be ill-conceived and perverse to ignore the public consultations and the SADPD which is a public and statutory process before it has been concluded.”

Another resident, Maurice Cawood, who lives in nearby Low Street, objected to the development for more practical reasons, and claimed: “The site is to be accessed via a single road which would seem to be inadequate for the likely level of traffic that this additional site, together with a further ten houses proposed an an adjacent site, would generate.

“The local facilities – particularly the primary school and GP surgery – would be unable to cope with the additional demand generated by this large development and a financial contribution would not resolve this problem.”

The report recommends the scheme is approved providing developers provide contributions for affordable housing, off-site recreational open space, and new education and waste and recycling facilities.

Local Businesses

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