THERE HAVE been two letters published lately on this page regarding the application to build on land on West Garth in Cayton recently approved by Scarborough Borough Council’s planning committee. I would like to add my comments to those already expressed.
I too was at the planning meeting where this application was granted and was amazed at the way the genuine concerns of local people were trivialised and discounted. One councillor did indeed state that since an application was previously passed at Cloughton then so should Cayton be approved because not to do so would set a precedent. Heavens above! How could we allow a scenario where each application be considered on its merit or otherwise, taking all things into consideration and might be refused.
This was the second attempt to have this application passed, the first having been refused due to an objection from Yorkshire Water and other planning concerns. The plans having been amended, Yorkshire Water withdrew their objections and the modified plans to develop the site were passed. However, in withdrawing their objections Yorkshire Water inferred there were no insurmountable problems with the site and that inference played a large part in the committee’s decision to approve the application.
I also noticed that the fact the owners of these proposed homes may well not be able to obtain insurance cover was deemed not to be a planning consideration yet the profitability of the development of the developer certainly was.
This is borne out by the fact that the proposal has been passed with a requirement that only 20 per cent of the homes are to be affordable instead of the usual 40 per cent because the problems to be overcome in developing the site would make it non viable financially for the developer if the normal 40 per cent were insisted upon.
I was fortunate enough to recently meet, together with some other villagers, two representatives from Yorkshire Water who had been willing to come and discuss the problems of sewage, drainage and flooding in the village and our concerns over adding to them with this new housing development. It soon became clear they were not fully aware of the extent and nature of the problems, or how much water needs to be drained off this land and that where it is intended to drain into, ie the River Hertford is already full in winter.
Finally, I would echo the comments of your previous correspondent that of the 16 councillors on the planning committee only one had taken the trouble to visit the site and has expressed concern at what he has seen.
The real ‘nimbyism’ here has to be those councillors who voted for this development without taking account of all the circumstances, only that it meets their figures, requirements, projections, quotas, statistics etc and it won’t affect them because they live miles away and wouldn’t know where to find the site anyway, even if they cared enough to try.
N de Groote