A ‘mistake’ blamed for gross over-tipping on Gilberdyke Landfill site

Spin, glossy photographs, breath-taking arrogance, errors and shocking confessions when confronted by the media and residents.  This was the Gilberdyke Landfill exhibition (public consultation event) held by Tip operators City Plant Ltd last Thursday.  If this was the Tip owners attempt to win over public support, then it completely backfired, especially when City Plant consultant and company front man Kevin Wanlass stated that the over tipping on the site to levels twice the permitted height was simply a mistake.  This incredible revelation was recorded and duly aired on Look North (see below).

So then, it all comes down to ‘a mistake’, a mistake that has made the faceless Directors of City Plant Ltd an absolute fortune - a fortune the majority of Gilberdyke and Newport residents can only dream about.  Money made through a cynical manipulation of the system, and shocking inaction by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) and particularly the Environment Agency (EA) as the two bodies that should have protected those residents.  In the eyes of many the ERYC and the EA have been at worse complicit and at best lacking courage, both having rolled over and allowed this whole sorry saga to continue, month after month.

It is clear the ‘mistake’ was made quite soon after City Plant Ltd became interested in the site. The single glaring question that needs to be answered is, when the ‘mistake’ was realised why did they not stop and take immediate action to rectify the situation? 

People are not stupid and the authorities should not treat them as such. The question residents rightly want answered is why, even after a ‘mistake’ was made, was the tipping of thousands upon thousands of tons of waste permitted to continue and the Company Directors allowed to make obscene amounts of cash?

It is not acceptable for the Company to come forward with the feeble attempt at an apology that we saw on Look North; I simply do not believe that the City Plant ‘unintentionally’ broke the planning conditions.  Why did they uncap previously capped off areas of the tip to add more waste – was that an accident too? We all know what the height condition was in the planning approval – I’ve chaired enough tip liaison group meetings with City Plant, ERYC Planners and the EA where the height of the tip and volumes of waste entering the site was discussed at length and I had stated that a compromise had to be reached where tipping of waste had to stop as soon as possible.  Needless to say, we have seen very little compromise from City Plant Ltd as they continued to rake in the cash.

So we are now to see a retrospective planning application submitted to the ERYC to allow the finished area of the Tip to remain at its present height, whilst allowing waste to be tipped until the remaining void space is deemed full at some time between November 2012 and Feb 2013.  Some would say this is planning through the back door and ask why it has been allowed to happen.

Not only is the Tip height greater than the planning consent, the profile is very different; the approved shape was for gently sloping sides to a relatively small top, but what we see now in something akin to Ayers Rock with steep sides and a large top. It does not take a genius to work out that this change of profile is a result of over-tipping gargantuan amounts of waste. The planning consent deals specifically with the visual amenity of the site (i.e. what it looks like) therefore the ERYC legal people have some questions to answer as to why this has been allowed to happen, and why enforcement has not been forthcoming.  Was this a result of a ‘mistake’ too?  The recently coined noun ‘omnishambles’ is one that springs to mind in this particular context.

To conclude on a positive note, the exhibition did include a timescale for the completion of the tip – tipping of waste would stop between November 2012 and February 2013 and capping and restoration completed by November 2013. So no more massive waste lorries entering the site after next February, and no more tipper wagons carrying restorative materials by November 2013 – a belated and small relief to the long-suffering residents of Gilberdyke and Newport.

Beagle Farm plans thrown out at appeal

The Robinson's have a beagle called 'Lou' (pictured above), she is a great friend and very much part of the family.

I am therefore very pleased that a company breeding beagle dogs for animal experiments has lost its case at appeal. The US Company B & K Universal was originally refused permission to expand its facilities at Grimston in the East Riding of Yorkshire by the Council's Planning Committee. This after it sparked public outcry, many letters and emails, and increased security at County Hall on the day of the meeting.

The Company which had been seeking consent to breed up to 2,000 beagles at a time for experiments, has now been told by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles that its application has been rejected.

Great News!

Windfarm company still playing ‘fast and loose’ with resident’s concerns

Many will recall when I spoke against the Sixpennywood Windfarm application at the appeal hearing - I said the company Your Energy had acted in a very questionable manner from the very beginning, playing scant regard to community engagement, riding roughshod over local concerns, measuring the background noise in very dubious circumstances, and changing the size of the turbines between the Planning Committee making its decision and the case going to appeal.

Needless to say the actions of the company continue to raise concerns and annoy a number of residents as they now try to take 'common land', and look to close a bridleway for their convenience during the construction process.

Nearby Spaldington is poised for a similar battle against not one, but two large wind farm developers – one at each side of the village, as both go to appeal simultaneously in mid-May after yet again being refused by the ERYC Planning Committee.

Local democracy is worth fighting for, local voices are important and should be heard, alas this was clearly not the previous Labour Governments understanding, when they trampled all over local democratically elected Councillors, hopefully now that centralist government with its complete lack of understanding of rural issues has been thrown out. The new Coalition Government with its Localism agenda will hopefully give us a fairer hearing.

How ironic the number of times (like today), that I drive over the Ouse Bridge to see the wind turbines west of Airmyn at a standstill, but Drax in the background still churns out the megawatts.”

Separation distances between wind turbines and affected residences

I have submitted the following motion to be debated by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council at the Wednesday 13th October 2010 full Council meeting.

"That this Council

1) asks the Secretary of State to give urgent consideration to reviewing the government’s planning guidance on renewable energy as clarification is needed on national minimum distances between wind turbines and affected residences taking into account the size of the turbine

2) then undertakes a review of its ’Interim Planning Document on Renewable Energy’, which could include minimum distance criteria between wind turbines and sensitive land uses such as residential dwellings, rights of way and roads.”

The motion was approved by the Council with only the 3 Labour Councillors voting against!

At almost exactly the same time the Goverment Policy for onshore wind turbines was being discussed by MPs and the Minister at Westminster, a recording of which can be seen here

The following is the speech I gave to support the motion:

The East Riding is already carrying more than its fair share of the country’s EU and National renewable energy targets in those applications that have been approved. The capacity of the East Riding to accept more wind farms is perhaps open to question – BUT what is clear is that particular areas will be saturated, and when all those already approved are built would be in effect windfarm landscapes. Herein lies the problem – many wind farms have planning consent, but apart from Lisset none are yet built.

Over the last 3½ years the Council Planning Committee has considered windfarm application after windfarm application – some have been approved, some have been refused – and of those that have been refused and appealed - all have been approved by a planning inspector.

When looking at the applications the Planning Committee has approved – each has been in a location away from properties… These include the Twin Rivers site, the Goole Fields site, Sancton, and the site near Burton Pidsea….

If one looks at the windfarms that have been approved, either by the Planning Committee or the Planning inspector it is clear that the physical size of the turbines is generally increasing, but worryingly we are seeing more turbines planned to be built ever closer to properties.

The Goole Fields application saw no properties within 750m and only 3 properties within 1,000m

The Sixpennywood application saw 2 properties within 750 and a further 3 within 1,000m

Withernwick then saw 5 properties within 1,000m

Monkwith saw 1 property within 750m and 12 within 1,000m

Then came the Spaldington applications…. of all the windfarm applications we’ve considered - I can’t recall anywhere seeing a proposal for so many properties within 1000m of 126m high turbines … 33 in this case… and worse still out of the 33 – 8 are within 750m - which is unbelievable. Also the centre of the village is only 1,000m away from the nearest turbine.

This is the background to this motion….

An adequate separation distance between wind turbines and properties is important for a number of reasons, with visual impact and noise being the main concerns.

Visual impact is quite easy to determine, imagine living within less than 750m of the Lissett windfarm to get a flavour of the overpowering nature of 125m high wind turbines. Imagine having to live with the constant movement…

Noise is much, much more complex.

The starting point for noise impact is the 1997 ETSU Guidance, which is based on average background noise levels at residences likely to be affected by wind turbines. This is open to abuse by windfarm developers as it based on average background noise levels, which can be affected by a number of factors. I have real issues with, and serious concerns over the way the background noise data has been gathered by some applicants - particularly the locations chosen for noise measurements and the so called farming activities that have taken place around the equipment during the period of measurement – including the running corn dryers or constantly working the land in the vicinity of the noise measuring equipment – thereby giving a higher than normal reading.

Then planning conditions are applied to limit the noise of the wind turbines to be less than say 5db above background noise levels – so if the background noise level is inflated the noise from the turbines can be somewhat greater, allowing for the larger turbines to operate at a fuller capacity.

It is acknowledged by many that this 1997 government guidance is outdated and flawed – after all it was put in place a long time before we as a Council were looking at these massive 2 and 3 MW, 126m high turbines.

This can be addressed very easily by ensuring that there is a minimum separation distance between a wind turbine and a property, as the noise diminishes with distance.

The second part of the motion adds a localised dimension to address separation distances, not only between wind turbines and residences, but also roads and rights of way. I have included roads because the skid marks on the road, observing the traffic travelling on the A165 between Beeford and Lissett, and talking to others, shows that drivers are distracted by the closeness of one of turbines to the road. The lesson from this does not appear to have been learnt as we saw a 126m high turbine proposed to be located with 60m of a highway as part of the Spaldington Common application – so much for fall over distances!

The response of the Secretary of State to the first part of the motion will determine how the second part is addressed. No one is exactly sure what the Government’s Localism Bill will contain when it comes to local decision-making regarding planning applications. But what is certain, the Council will need a policy on renewable energy that is fit for purpose.

This is not about preventing wind farms, it is about making sure turbines are located in areas that cause least problems for residents… it is about stopping our East Riding villages and hamlets being swamped by huge wind turbines being built unacceptably close.

Yes to Coalbed methane exploration in Howdenshire - But No to walking over local opinions

Scottish energy company Composite Energy will have to go back to the drawing board for a proposed 900m deep exploratory borehole in the search for coalbed methane on a site near Marr Grange Farm in Oxmardyke near Gilberdyke.

The Government’s planning inspector Mr K Williams ruled to uphold the decision of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Planning Committee to refuse the application due to unresolved access issues.

At the time when the application was before the Planning Committee the members supported my proposal that the Marr Grange site be refused on the grounds of the access along Marr Lane, a very narrow road with a history of subsiding into the dyke alongside, and repeated damage to the water main in the roadside verge. It was determined that the road was unable to cater for a great number of 32 or 34 tonne lorry movements. The preferred access was a more direct and shorter route directly from the much wider and more substantially constructed Tongue Lane. The Market Weighton Internal Drainage Board and Gilberdyke Parish Council had highlighted this, and the Committee agreed the risk was unacceptable.

The ERYC Planning Officers had recommended approval and subsequently employed a consultant, but unfortunately neither could support the reason given for refusal. This led to the Council Officers offering no evidence at the public inquiry held as part of the appeal process. It was left to Peter Clark, the recently retired Clerk to the Market Weighton Drainage Board and I as the local Councillor to come up with and present the evidence, challenge the applicant’s witnesses and be challenged by their Barrister. But I guess the end justified the means and we won the day.

The company use a pioneering method of drilling, it is hoped they are successful and that a large and reliable gas field is found, as this would bring a tremendous boost to the local economy. It would also help to reduce the imports of gas from foreign lands, some of which are controlled by unstable and unpredictable governments.

I therefore hope that the company will learn from this appeal decision and realise they can't walk all over local opinion, and now go back to the landowner and renegotiate a more direct and shorter route from Tongue Lane to the proposed site. Ironically this would mean any temporary road from a highway to the drilling site being much shorter than originally proposed from Marr Lane.

Spaldington windfarm applications thrown out by ERYC Planning Committee

Pictured with David Davis MP and Spaldington Residents

This week we saw a victory for local democracy as the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Planning Committee supported 98% of Spaldington residents and threw out the two windfarm applications – one at each side of the village.

We had the Parish Councils of Spaldington, HOSM, Bubwith, Foggathorpe, Gilberdyke, Eastrington, Wressle, and Howden Town Council - representing some 13,755 local residents all objecting to the applications, we also had local MP David Davis and MEP Godfrey Bloom speaking out against the applications.

The East Riding is already carrying more than its fair share of the country’s EU and National renewable energy targets in those that have been approved. The capacity of the East Riding to accept more wind farms is perhaps open to question – BUT what is clear is that this particular area - within a 12 ½ mile radius of Spaldington, that forms the gateway to the East Riding, will be saturated by the 90 wind turbines that are either constructed, or are already approved and waiting to be are built. What we will see is effect a windfarm landscape without adding more.

As a member of the Planning Committee, I can’t recall considering any like the two applications facing the village. It was not just about the proximity of 2 windfarms – it was about Spaldington being at the centre of a large windfarm, with residents living in the middle of 12 of the biggest on-shore wind turbines in the UK. We had never seen applications were so many properties would have been within 1000m – 56 houses, and unbelievably 24 of which would have been within 775m.

For me Spaldington residents have suffered enough, and continue to suffer from the foulest smells as a result of agricultural composting, but now at least they will not be faced with being at the centre of a large-scale windfarm – I hope the decision we made will give a little respite to the community by not compounding their suffering with a noisy windfarm.

I spoke at length and moved refusal for both applications for the following reasons

1. Cumulative impact of both the applications and the other 90 wind turbines that are either operational or approved within a 12 ½ mile radius of the site.

2. Overbearing and detrimental impact on the lives of residents living in the properties falling within 1,000m of the proposed site.

Fortunately the majority of the planning Committee agreed.

The applicants can of course appeal the decision, as we have seen with many windfarm applications in the East Riding, so it may be that residents have been victorious in this battle but the war is still to be won.

If it is the case that the applicants do decide to appeal the decisions, it is clear they will have one hell of a battle - with a formidable residents group to lead the fight. I will no longer be shackled by the Councillors ‘Code of Conduct’ (as I have prior to the planning committee meeting) - therefore please be assured that if the decisions are appealed I will do my utmost to ensure that ultimate victory will be with Spaldington residents, and those living in the neighbouring communities.

(Please see images below produced by Robert Hare showing showing sections of the views from each end of the village now and also with the proposed wind turbines superimposed as per the industry standards)

New Beverley Hospital receives final approval from ERYC Planning Committee

I was pleased to be one of the 10 Councillors on the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Planning Committee who this week voted through the final details for the go ahead of the new Beverley hospital. I was happy to speak in favour, and move approval for the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

I had reservations about the site when the original outline application came before us some months ago, I was very much aware (and still am) that this was not the best site for a new hospital, and did initially raise concerns particularly on the traffic movements along Swinemoor Road and flood risk. But having looked at the information available to members of the Committee it was clear that traffic to and from the site could be accommodated and the risk of flooding managed. I was also led to believe the Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals Trust had looked at other sites and options but for one reason or another these had to be discounted.

This meant that the Swinemoor Road Site was the application in front of the Committee and what we had to make a decision on - it was never about selection of sites – there was no choice of sites. I also knew that the funding window was narrow and a decision had to be made.

I indicated that the design may not be one of the best on paper – but design can be subjective and functionality and the impact of the visual environment have to be considered. I drew parallels with the Castle Hill Oncology unit - with which I had serious concerns about the design at the planning stage. But now constructed I feel is a fantastic design concept that incorporates functionality and stunning views ensuring a therapeutic environment for the patients being treated.

Ultimately we will see a new community hospital to the North of Beverley, with relatively easy access not just for Beverley residents but also from as far a field as Hornsea and Driffield.

There are totally different issues surrounding the downsizing of provision at Goole Hospital with which I have serious concerns. Rightly or wrongly this is in a different administrative area under the management of the North Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Why I couldn’t support the application for a anemometer (wind testing) mast at Holme on Spalding Moor

An anemometer (wind testing) mast is normally the forerunner to a fully-fledged windfarm. The recent planning application for an anemometer mast at the Gallymoor site at Holme on Spalding Moor was something I could not support, when it was presented to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Strategic Planning Committee on which I sit.

I thought the location was not the best on the site as it was too near the neighbouring property, also I would have liked to see more information on wind turbine numbers; height, type and location being considered, and how the anemometer mast fitted in with the complete proposal.

Unfortunately the majority of the Planning Committee took a different view and the application was approved.

As a member of the Planning Committee I have supported applications for anemometer masts on a significant number of sites that have come before us, but conversely I have been unable to support others, these included places such as North Newbald, Sixpennywood and Spaldington.

It seems ironic that the information gleaned from an anemometer mast does not appear to be an important part of whether a wind farm application is to be submitted or not. This was evidenced by the North Newbald application when the anemometer mast was given planning consent at appeal on the 3rd November 2008 - BUT the Council received the application for the resultant windfarm on 3rd October 2008, a full month before the result of the mast appeal was known. Therefore clearly no information from the anemometer mast could possibly have been included in the application.

For this reason I feel applicants could, and should be more upfront with their plans.

Disused Bubwith Arts Centre Gets Planning Consent For Development

The East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Planning Committee has, subject to access issues being resolved, approved the development of the disused Arts International Centre just north of Bubwith. The centre has not been used for many years and despite numerous attempts by the owners, could not be sold.

The application was for a conversion to accommodate 14 dwellings and 2 offices plus a part conversion of the existing theatre to provide a Rural Enterprise Centre. This in my view was the best compromise and will ensure that the building does not fall into disrepair, adds to the sustainability of Bubwith village and the shops and services it provides.

My fellow Howdenshire Councillor Mrs Engall spoke in support of the application. I then proposed that we as a planning committee supported the application, but asked for a footpath to directly link the development to the village be included, and that the vehicular access should be onto a side road rather than the Howden - York Road, fortunately the majority of the committee members agreed and we have a way forward. (Photo by Gordon Kneale Brooke)

A kick in the teeth for democracy as Central Government continues to overrule local decision making on siting of Windfarms

Yesterday (Thursday), we as the East Riding of Yorkshire Council Planning Committee had two wind farm applications in front of us. One for 16 turbines on Goole Fields, which was a very good, well thought through application, and something I found easy to support personally and it had the unanimous support of the Committee. The other was for 3 turbines at Monkwith, near Roos in South Holderness, this I had serious problems with due to the cumulative impact of other applications in the area, at this point in time I don't know on what basis the committee could make a decision... I fail to see how we are able to make decisions on renewable energy applications when the Government is making policy on the hoof. We have to stop this second-guessing of what they want, and let them tell us what policy(s) they expect us to make a decision.

I therefore proposed that the application be deferred for “more information and clarification on the current weighting between national interest and the cumulative impact of wind farms, as the Secretary of State's recent decisions appear to be running contrary to the Government's own planning policy statements” ..... The committee supported this, plus added further concerns about the impact on the local airfield.

The Government message is coming across loud and clear, and is that if we as a local authority planning committee refuse any renewable energy application wherever, whenever and by whoever the applicant is likely to take it to appeal were the Government’s planning inspector will overrule that the decision. To defend the Planning Committee’s decision at such appeals costs the Council some £60k. This is nothing more than a ‘tax on local democracy’, and I refuse to have my hands shackled on this, it is not acceptable, and we must be free as democratically elected Councillors to make our decisions without the spectre of Ed Milliband sitting on our shoulders!

I accept that as a Planning Committee member we have to look at each planning application on its own merits and we can only make a decision on what is in front of us, but applications like the one yesterday can't be pigeon holed just like that and must not be treated in isolation. We must consider the cumulative impact of all the wind farm applications close to Roos.

It is Roos today but it may well be Sancton, Spaldington or any other village in the East Riding tomorrow.

The East Riding of Yorkshire is special and its rurality is one of the reasons why people choose to live here. It is essential that this be protected from the speculative windfarm developers - windfarms in suitable locations like Goole Fields yes, but not in unsuitable locations, sites close to residences, or where sheer numbers swamp communities.

With the Secretary of State overruling decisions taken by the Planning Committee on siting of windfarms, it is nothing more than a kick in the teeth for every individual community, residents group, action group or Parish Council who have spent many hours and their hard earned cash in putting together campaigns and documentation to ensure that issues of landscape, siting, noise, transport, and impact on their homes, lives and businesses is properly taken into account by the Planning Committee. Only to find out that all is in vain as Milliband overrules each and every possible objection in the so-called national interest. He's even dispensed with the pretence of considering the communities view, or our view as an authority, by the Governments unelected planning inspectors dealing with complex appeals in just 17 days....

The Government should save us from this charade and come clean by telling the public and us as Councillors that alternative energy applications are now permitted development, allowed wherever, whenever and by whoever at the behest of the speculative developer.

Gas exploration work in Howdenshire

Scottish energy company Composite Energy has commenced drilling exploratory 900m deep boreholes near Howdenshire villages, in the hope of discovering untapped underground gas fields of Coal Bed Methane (CMB). The fist site south of Newport received planning consent from the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, drilling commenced and has been completed. Two subsequent applications for sites at Oxmardyke Grange in Blacktoft, and Marr Grange Farm Gilberdyke have struggled through the planning process, with the latter being refused due to unresolved access issues.

The company use a pioneering method of drilling, it is hoped they are successful and that a large and reliable gas field is found, as this would bring a tremendous boost to the local economy. It would also help to reduce the imports of gas from foreign lands, some of which are controlled by unstable and unpredictable governments.

I asked for the planning consent for the site at Oxmardyke Grange Blacktoft to be deferred until the company agreed to a survey of Tongue Lane, (Faxfleet Lane) and Oxmardyke Lane before work started, and a similar survey on cessation of the drilling and site restoration, and for them to make good any damage caused. The company agreed to this and planning consent has now been granted.

The Planning Committee also supported my proposal that the Marr Grange, Gilberdyke site be refused on the grounds of the access along Marr Lane, a very narrow road with a history of subsiding into the dyke alongside, and repeated damage to the water main in the roadside verge. It was determined that the road was unable to cater for several hundred 32 or 34 tonne lorry movements. The Market Weighton Internal Drainage Board and Gilberdyke Parish Council had highlighted this, and the committee agreed the risk was unacceptable.

It is hoped that the company will now go back to the landowner and negotiate a more direct and shorter route from Tongue Lane to the proposed site. Ironically this would mean any temporary road from a highway to the drilling site would likely be much shorter than originally proposed from Marr Lane.

For more information on Composite Energy please click: http://www.composite-energy.co.uk/

More reasons to shop in Goole

I am pleased that the East Riding Council's Planning Committee supported the approval for a new Morrisons store on the old Timms site, Boothferry Road, Goole.

As a member of the Planning Committee, I felt it important we dealt with the application without delay in order to bring the derelict site back to life as soon as possible, but at the same time ensuring the historic windmill was included in the design, plus an element of free parking, and we were not put off by objections from another developer wanting to construct a supermarket at the north end of the town.

I would have preferred to have seen 4 hours free parking at the supermarket to allow shoppers not only the time to shop at the supermarket, but also walk up Boothferry and Pasture Road to use the existing shops and the market, but had to settle for the 3 hours.

If the 3 hours free parking is considered along with the two hours free parking at the nearby Tesco, then free short stay parking in Goole should be pretty well catered for.

This is a positive decision for the town and it will give residents of not only Goole, but also surrounding villages, more choice as to where to shop, and hopefully with choice comes competition and lower prices.

The development will also create about 200 new jobs, in addition to those badly needed jobs in the construction industry during the construction of the store.

Capitol Park Planning Decision Brings Jobs Boost To Goole

In the present climate it is important that we do everything we can to encourage job creation in the Goole area, junction 36 is likely to be one of the economic power-houses of the East Riding in years to come. The Council is bringing forward it's capital programme wherever possible to help the local economy through the present recession, and the application for a significant development on Goole's Capitol Park passed recently by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council's Planning Committee, is also putting jobs and the economy first.

As a member of the Planning Committee it was clear to me that the applicant (Sterling Capital) was doing all that it could in saving a great number of the protected trees, and I requested a condition (that was subsequently added) to replace the majestic redwood on the site that is to be lost with a greater number of redwoods, the Council has also insisted a bat roost is constructed to accommodate the bats in the area. The company is also committed to developing the Country Park area north of the site. The 'Friends of Oakhill' who had originally opposed the application, recognised that the company was doing what it could and supported the application at the Planning Committee meeting.

I was very disappointed that the Labour Councillor representing Goole South, who also sits on the planning committee, could not support the creation of these Goole jobs and voted against the application.

Planning Committee halts 17-house Gilberdyke development

The East Riding of Yorkshire Council Western Area Planning Committee has thrown out a recent proposal for the building of a 17-house estate on the field east of the Claytons Fold development in Gilberdyke.

There is an issue of whether this is a ‘Greenfield’ meadow or a previously used ‘Brownfield’ site…. But it did seem that the applicant was at odds with opinions of long-standing residents of Gilberdyke who contacted me and provided the photographs that contradicted the case put forward for designation of a ‘Brownfield’ site.

The committee agreed with me that the two important issues that should be considered were foul and surface water drainage, and whether the existing village infrastructure could cope with additional housing.

I was absolutely amazed by the consultation comments from Yorkshire Water. Who appeared to be unaware that 56 houses were flooded in Gilberdyke during last June’s flooding with some residents still not back in their houses, or that the sewers flooded again in January this year. I could not believe that Yorkshire Water’s planners did not know about these specific incidents or that their sewers flood on a regular basis, or that the school was closed for a week last June, not because of the building being flooded but because the school toilets could not be flushed as the sewers were full.

I asked the committee to consider the location and the proximity to Hansard Crescent, which was just spared the flooding experienced last year, as this green field was able to absorb the run off from Clayton’s Fold, and more importantly from Hansard. What would be the impact on Hansard Crescent if this field were concreted over with houses built with higher floor levels because of the flood risk?

The quantity of housing development that Gilberdyke has been forced to endure recently was also raised, it was pointed out there have been 111 houses completed in the last 4 years, 30 more started and 18 more still to commence. A total of 151 houses with no investment in village infrastructure or services.

It was also established that when the Parish Council consulted the community some 460 residents from over 350 households responded, saying they did not want to see any further significant housing or industrial development until there was investment in village infrastructure. Only 7 people had the opposing view.

The Committee’s decision was a victory for common sense and showed Gilberdyke residents concerns have been listened to.