Showing posts with label Gilberdyke Housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gilberdyke Housing. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Are those lights from a 'piste machine' on a ski slope or just Gilberdyke's Landfill Mountain?

I heard an interesting comment from a Gilberdyke resident over the weekend, “I feel like I’m on a skiing holiday, when every evening I look across to see a piste machine battering the ski slopes of the mountain over there.”

Needless to say he was referring to the lights from the machinery working on the Gilberdyke Tip, which has grown to such heights to be frankly laughable, if it was not so serious.

I recently chaired a difficult meeting of the Tip Liaison Committee when it was confirmed that the tip has recently changed hands and is now both owned and operated by City Plant Ltd, it was also established that the operators had deliberately breached the planning conditions by tipping at considerable heights above the permitted 8.0m level, with the reality being that the company have actually tipped to a level which has effectively doubled the permitted height, and they had recently breached the Environment Agency permit regarding mud on the roads surrounding the site. But most worryingly, due to ‘misunderstandings during the planning process’ the community was now faced with a further two years tipping to fill or perhaps overfill the site rather than the one year envisaged.

The City Plant Ltd consultant, Kevin Wanlass, was asked when the levels of the tip would be reduced to the permitted height; I was very disturbed to have my fears confirmed that instead of reducing the tip height to the permitted 8m level, the operators are likely to submit a planning application to maintain the existing levels. I view this as a disgraceful, deliberate and cynical ploy on the part of City Plant Ltd, and I will be consulting with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) to take appropriate action to make the height of the tip compliant as soon as possible.

I made it quite clear that I was not happy for anything other than the permitted heights to be met on the site and it was highly unlikely that anything other than this would be supported by the local community.

Fellow community representative and Newport Parish Council Chairman Roy Hunt and I also raised the issue of mud on the roads from the tip, namely Newport’s Leatherdog Lane and Thimblehall Lane, and the many complaints received. It was confirmed that many calls of complaint had been received by the ERYC, the Environment Agency and the Parish Council; it was interesting that one of the tip representatives said it was only muddy on one day; this was robustly challenged and contradicted by Roy Hunt, who confirmed that he’d witnessed and had photographs of mud on a number of consecutive days.

I find the mud on the road to be totally unacceptable, and subsequent to the meeting rode along the roads, and witnessed the crude attempts at wheel washing by the operators. I raised this issue again with the Environment Agency the following week and demanded action. It was later confirmed that on 20th December an enforcement notice on City Plant Ltd was issued for a breach of the permit conditions relating to mud. Failure to comply with the notice by the end of January will be an offence, which I am hoping will spur City Plant Ltd into installing proper facilities as soon as possible to stop the mud leaving the site rather than trying to clean the roads with road-sweepers afterwards. It seems incredible that this site was allowed to continue to operate after the previous facilities were removed with the obvious impact on road users, particularly during wet weather.

The operators have installed gas collection equipment on the tip, including a new gas flare at the site entrance, although very welcome as this should reduce some of the foul stink emanating from the site, the gas flare was installed without planning consent.

Clarification was also sought regarding lorries NOT using the site weighbridge, it was alleged by City Plant Ltd. that all lorries entering the site to tip waste passed over the weighbridge, although lorries bringing material to the site for engineering operations would not as they were not delivering waste. Further clarification was sought on this by the community representatives because of multiple claims that lorries were seen entering and leaving the site without passing over the weighbridge either on entry or exit.

It was established that any complaints from residents about the operation of the tip should be made to the Environment Agency by telephone on 0800 807060.

The issue of site working outside the permitted hours of operation was also raised. I stated that it would be a lot better for the local community if the company could let people know what was happening on the site and what measures they were being taken to resolve any problems. A pro-active as opposed to a re-active approach should be promoted. The Council Planning Officer said that the operators should let the local Council know if they were planning on doing any work outside the parameters of the planning permission. This could then be shared with community representatives and agreement reached before the activity took place.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Gilberdyke Consultation On Future Housing Requirements

Many thanks to all those Gilberdyke residents who attended the Parish Council’s recent consultation event on future housing provision, and the two proposed speed limit reductions in the village. Over 100 people called in during the day to look at the proposals and give their thoughts.

The East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) Local Development Framework (LDF) Preferred Approach Core Strategy suggests Gilberdyke be allocated limited further housing development in the years leading up to 2026.

At the beginning of 2010 Gilberdyke had 45 dwellings that had received planning consent - but had yet to be built. The LDF proposal is for a further 125 dwellings being constructed in the years to 2026, and between 2.5 and 4.2 hectares of land will be required for these houses to be constructed.18 possible sites have been identified in and around the village - totalling some 58.15 hectares; consequently there are choices as to which of the sites will be allocated for this future housing, and priorities as to the order in which the land is released. It is this that the ERYC is consulting with residents.


For a larger scale map click here
For details and sizes of individual parcels of land click here

It seemed that the need for some additional housing in the next 15 years was accepted in principle by most, with the old Railway Hotel site (GIL12 on the map) being the most favoured, with various other sites receiving different levels of support.

It was acknowledged by most that the only way that the old Railway Hotel site, which forms the eyesore at the entrance to the village when coming in by rail could be improved from its overgrown brick rubble strewn state, is for it to be developed. Although concerns were raised regarding the flood risk associated with the site.

The issue of general flooding was raised by a number of residents, with most of the questions surrounding the planned flood relief works to be carried out by ERYC working together with the Lower Ouse Internal Drainage Board and the Parish Council – all of which were answered.

There were a number of people commenting about the capacity of Gilberdyke Health Centre to accommodate more Gilberdyke residents, and also residents from neighbouring villages. This includes Newport where an additional 71 houses are also proposed over the next 15 years - in addition to the 14 that already have planning consent.

There were also comments regarding the parking outside the Gilberdyke Health Centre, and questions as to whether car-parking provision could be linked to the suggested new housing.

Questions were also raised regarding where the occupiers of new housing would work, and proposed industrial developments around junction 38.

The speed limits proposals received differing responses. The 20mph zone in the centre of the village was certainly popular and received a great deal of support, with the general feeling that speeding must be policed better than it is now, and numerous people requested that no speed humps are installed. The proposed reduction from 40mph to 30mph on the Main Road (B1230) received mixed views - just over half did not want to see any reductions, and of those that did, some wanted to see the speed limit extended westwards to the entrance to the Ings View Sports Field.

If you have any further comments or thoughts on the LDF Housing proposals please email: forward.planning@eastriding.gov.uk


Sunday, August 01, 2010

Gilberdyke residents to have their say on future housing developments & proposed new speed limits

The East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) is consulting with residents about future housing development. This includes proposals for the number of new dwellings required in East Yorkshire villages and towns in the years up to 2026, and also identifies a number of possible sites for development in some Howdenshire villages including: Gilberdyke, Newport, North Cave, Bubwith, Eastrington and Holme on Spalding Moor

This is part of the ‘aptly named’ ERYC Local Development Framework (LDF) Preferred Approach Core Strategy.

The ERYC are consulting on which of the suggested sites are most suitable for development in the selected villages.

Gilberdyke has been suggested for limited further development in the years leading up to 2026. At the beginning of 2010 Gilberdyke had 45 dwellings that had received planning consent - but had yet to be built. The proposal is for 125 further dwellings being required in the years to 2026, and for these houses to be constructed between 2.5 and 4.2 hectares of land will be required.

18 possible sites have been identified in and around the village - totalling some 58.15 hectares; consequently there are choices as to which of the sites will be allocated for this future housing, and priorities as to the order in which the land is released.

Gilberdyke Parish Council have been asked for their comments and priorities, and have decided to involve the village in the decision making process by holding a consultation with residents. This is to be held at the Youth Club building (adjacent to the Memorial Hall) between 12noon and 7pm on Thursday 5th August 2010.

A map showing the suggested sites for Gilberdyke can be seen at:

http://easysite.eastriding.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=69077&type=full&servicetype=Attachment

My previous comments on future housing plans for Gilberdyke - as part of the Council's LDF consultation back in 2006 can be found at:

http://paul-robinson-howdenshire.blogspot.com/2006/11/does-gilberdyke-need-more-housing.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed changes to Gilberdyke's speed limits

A proposal for reducing the speed limit on the B1230 (the Main Road) from 40mph down to 30mph is also being considered.

There is also a proposal to reduce the speed limit within the central part of the village down from 30mph to 20mph.

Each of the speed reduction proposals is out for consultation and the Parish Council is seeking the views of residents at the same event.

Please go along and have your say on these important issues.

Please Note

For housing numbers and maps showing potential sites in other East Riding towns and villages please go to:

http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/forward-planning/local-development-framework/allocations-dpd/

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Land West of Gilberdyke's Railway Hotel to be released for development

The land West of the Railway Hotel under water after normal rainfall
(Please note levels of houses in background)

There has been a rumour circulating for a few months that the land west of Gilberdyke's old Railway Hotel site has received planning permission and is being marketed as such. Needless to say this rumour is untrue…. for the moment that is.

Yesterday’s East Riding Mail carried a front-page story indicating that Greenfield land already allocated for building East of Sandholme Road and North of the railway station is to be released for development.

Unfortunately this is not quite true either, and I can confirm that all land East of Sandholme Road that was allocated in the Local Plan has already been developed.

BUT there is a small parcel of land North of the railway station that is to be released AND in addition land..... 'West of the Railway Hotel, Station Road' .....is only now to be released - if the proposals are approved.

Therefore Gilberdyke can probably expect a planning application for the Railway Hotel site and land to the West to be forthcoming.

All this as a result of Central Government imposing centralist targets on local councils for Greenfield development.

My thoughts on building on Greenfield sites and Greenbelt protection is broadly in line with Conservative Party policy - particularly in the area of strengthening local democracy and giving greater incentives to local authorities to build new homes with supporting infrastructure. Which in Gilberdyke's case would mean the community's voice being listened to, and improving the village infrastructure prior to/or at the same time as any further housing development.

Conservative Party Policy in this area is as follows:

Conservatives have pledged to scrap regional planning and the unelected regional assemblies.

• A Conservative Government will abolish the undemocratic and unwieldy tier of regional planning across England. This will include changing the law to scrap the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) and Regional Planning Bodies (currently the regional assemblies, soon to be RDAs).

Conservatives will return their powers to elected local councils.

• As a logical consequence of scrapping the regional plans, if the RSSs have already been implemented, we will allow councils to revise their local plans (‘Local Development Frameworks’) to undo the changes that the Regional Spatial Strategy forced on them. This will allow local communities to protect their local environment, and decide themselves the most appropriate level of development for their area.

National planning guidance will remain to provide a framework for local authorities – although such guidance will be amended in some ways. For example, we want to see greater powers for communities to protect neighbourhoods against ‘garden grabbing’

The Conservatives will be announcing in due course further proposals to strengthen local democracy and to give greater incentives to local authorities to build new homes with supporting infrastructure.

Sunday, May 04, 2008

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.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Gilberdyke opposes ERYC plans for further development

Some 460 Gilberdyke residents from over 350 households responded to the recent survey regarding the ERYC plans for significant housing and industrial developments in our community. 453 supported the Parish Council’s position, whilst only 7 residents did not.

The results and comments are to be passed on to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council as part of the consultation process.

“I would like to thank the number of people who took the time to respond and support the Parish Council, it's very reassuring, as this is probably the most important issue facing our community during the next 10 to 15 years. It sends out a clear message to the ERYC that enough is enough, and that there is very little consent for any further housing and industrial development in Gilberdyke until services and infrastructure are improved. It also shows that local people want to be part of local decision-making, and those in power who ignore this, do so at their peril”

“In the case of Gilberdyke, there have been many development planning decisions in the past that have left the community with many problems, some of which, especially heavy traffic movements, are shared with our neighbours in Newport. These will be compounded if the ERYC plans, as detailed in the LDF smaller settlements document go ahead. This issue will be high on the agenda for the recently formed joint working group, which consists of members of both Gilberdyke and Newport Parish Councils”.


Paul Robinson - Dec 2006

The full transcript of the Parish Council’s response can be seen at previous post "Does Gilberdyke need more housing"?

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Does Gilberdyke Need More Housing?

Gilberdyke as a Market Village


My following comments and full document is in response to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council's proposal to allocate significant more housing development to Gilberdyke as part of the proposed Local Development Framework (LDF) - This document has now been adopted by Gilberdyke Parish Council as 'their' response to the proposal.

“In theory the basic principles laid out in the ERYC Local Development Framework (LDF) are a logical step forward, and I can fully support future housing and industrial developments being located in sustainable areas, but not exclusively so. I feel help should also be given to communities struggling to remain sustainable through falling school rolls, and uneconomic village shops and post offices. History will not look back favourably on the ERYC if communities are allowed to die, simply because planning decisions having been made prevented limited development, when using the guidance offered by the ‘Sustainability Matrix’”

“In the case of Gilberdyke, there have been many development-planning decisions in the past that have left the community with many problems, some of which, especially heavy traffic movements, are shared with our neighbours in Newport. I have every faith the ERYC will take on board the comments and views of Gilberdyke people as part of this consultation process, and infrastructural investment will be forthcoming before any further housing or industry is permitted.”

“Should Gilberdyke continue to be developed against the wishes of the community then I can see an exodus of Gilberdyke people, breaking the already fragile community spirit that has struggled to remain over the years, as more and more people have moved into the village. This community spirit has had a positive effect on maintaining a low rate of crime and very few social problems. This is something to be valued as part of village life.”
Paul Robinson Nov 2006



GILBERDYKE AS A MARKET VILLAGE

The village of Gilberdyke has been identified as a priority 1 market village by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Local Development Framework – smaller settlements development plan document (preferred options). There are plans to construct at least 250 dwellings each year in the Western Area with 13% of these shared between Gilberdyke, Newport and Rawcliffe.

The plan indicates that future development is to be focused in villages such as Gilberdyke where it is perceived that existing housing, jobs and services are located in close proximity. This may well be a good theory but in practice there is a question mark over whether Gilberdyke’s already overstretched village services and infrastructure can actually cope with the present level of development, let alone any increase.

History

The village of Gilberdyke has expanded rapidly over the past 35 years, with many houses built and jobs created on the industrial estate located at the south side of the village. The industrial estate was originally a ‘pole yard’ where trees were converted into telegraph poles. The yard was served by the railway, and had dedicated rail sidings so that the impact of traffic through the village was minimal. The pole yard and railway sidings were closed many years ago, before the industrial estate was re-developed and expanded to its present size. The desire for employment opportunities in the community appears to have been the rationale behind the planner’s decisions in allowing an industrial estate to develop at the far side of a village, without an adequate means of access. Unfortunately, the legacy of this is a situation, where the traffic travelling through the village has become intolerable for a great many residents. Overall this is the issue that most concerns residents throughout the whole community.

Housing in Gilberdyke

During the time of the industrial estate growth, housing development increased and the community changed, with many people moving into the village from towns and cities in search of low cost housing and employment. The village also became a commuter village with many people working in Hull. The employment opportunities within the community have remained relatively static for the past few years, as the businesses on the industrial estate have ceased to grow.

This has not stopped housing development, which has been rapid over the past 5 years, so rapid that the village services and infrastructure are unable to cope with any further development. This is widely accepted by the Community, Gilberdyke Parish Council, Gilberdyke School, the Health Centre, and Memorial Hall - but NOT the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC). There is much evidence to indicate that there is not the consent of the community for more housing, after the present phase of low cost housing is complete. People moved to Gilberdyke having chosen to live in a village, not to live in a town, but through decisions taken by developers, landowners and planners, they find themselves living in nothing less than a town.



Gilberdyke Industrial Estate

The industrial estate is the largest employer in the village with many members of the community being employed. There is also a large proportion of the workforces who is are not from the community and travel from other villages and towns, most travelling by car.

All raw materials used by the companies on the industrial estate, and all products manufactured there have to travel through the village by road. It should be noted that the industrial estate is approximately 1 mile along the non classified village roads from the B1230 resulting in many large lorries traversing these narrow, traffic lined roads at all hours of the day and night.

It is also worth noting the operation of the Warburton’s depot, which is a distribution centre for bread, although no bread, is actually made on site. Large articulated lorries bring the bread through the village to the depot in the early hours of each morning, when the bread is then transferred to a fleet of smaller lorries. These articulated lorries then return empty through the village back to the bakeries. Most of the drivers of the smaller lorries and the depot staff then drive through the village to the depot. The smaller lorries having been loaded, then leave the depot in the early hours of the morning, and drive through the village to deliver bread to various outlets returning empty back through the village a few hours later. The drivers then drive back through the village in their cars as they return home. The jobs are of course valuable, but the price of excessive traffic movements is a very high price to pay for the residents of Gilberdyke.

Traffic movements through the village to and from the industrial estate are the greatest concern for residents, and many feel let down by the planning process. However, the Parish Council and residents send many planning objections to the ERYC, and all seem to go unheeded. The quality of life for many Gilberdyke residents is certainly deteriorating, yet their taxes increase.

There is no doubt, that at school times, there is an accident waiting to happen as lorries and buses have been seen mounting the pavement, in order to pass parent’s parked parents cars and all at a time when school is arriving or leaving, and children are present on the pavements.

Much of the traffic from the industrial estate also passes through our neighbouring village of Newport on route to the M62, burdening this community with similar problems associated with heavy traffic movements. We understand that many Newport residents are unhappy about this.

Retail Outlets

If one takes into account the retail outlets in Gilberdyke there is one small supermarket, with very limited parking for both customers and suppliers. Adjacent to the supermarket is a newsagent, pharmacy and fruit shop. These outlets serve a population of 3028. When one looks at settlements of a similar or smaller size a great many have more retail outlets and facilities. What is clear is that the lack of retail outlets results in many residents shopping outside the community with a great many travelling by car. This is a significant issue within the village now, and this does not take into account the occupation of the 64 houses that are presently being built.

On Clementhorpe Road there are the issues of lack of parking space at the butchers, fish and chip shop, and post office, which also contributes to problems with traffic flow through the village.

Gilberdyke School

Gilberdyke Primary School is very fortunate when compared to other schools in the area, in the fact that it has a rising role, which means school funding is less of an issue. However, the school has a finite amount of space and buildings and therefore capacity, so it is now approaching the level where the school is actually full. It is predicted that the school will reach and exceed capacity during the next year, when some extra 48 low cost houses, and 16 mid-cost houses, which are presently being constructed in the village, are completed.

The Governing body of Gilberdyke School has not been consulted on housing development. This is clearly a weakness in the system. It is not clear how the ERYC has planned for the increased numbers who will want to attend the school.

This is an issue that the Parish Council would like addressing before these new houses are sold and occupied.

Gilberdyke Health Centre

Gilberdyke Health Centre serves not only the village of Gilberdyke but also many neighbouring communities within its catchment area including Newport, Eastrington and North Cave. As with the school, the Health Centre has a finite capacity and is rapidly approaching the situation, where the catchment area may well have to be reduced and the number of patients restricted. This would probably not directly affect the village of Gilberdyke, but the impact would certainly be felt for those who live in the communities outside any reduced catchment area.

Parking outside the Health Centre has been a contentious issue for many years. There is limited parking at the centre itself, and many motorists park on Thornton Dam Lane and Scalby Lane. The Health Centre is situated near to a busy bend in the road, so that this is a major contributor to the through traffic issue, one of the biggest problems faced by the residents, and again the Parish Council would like it to be addressed before those houses planned or under construction are completed.

Flooding and drainage

Another significant problem facing the residents of Gilberdyke is flooding and drainage. Historically the village was surrounded by land that was difficult to drain, with many of the grass fields having ‘dips and mounds’ where the livestock stood on the mounds during and after rainfall. Subsequently much of this land was built upon, and to compound this, the dykes draining this land have been filled in or piped incorrectly by the builders or by the original householders, which has left a legacy of flooding during and after times of rainfall in a number of areas within the village. Foul water drainage has also been an issue over the years, with many drains and sewers struggling to cope. This has been improved through the construction of the new sewage works but there is a question hanging over the capacity of this facility to accommodate significant further housing developments. These factors must be considered when making any future decisions on industrial or housing developments in Gilberdyke.

Doubts and issues raised by the document

The village of Gilberdyke is determined by the ERYC as a sustainable settlement and quite rightly so. Although the criteria can be somewhat confusing as clearly a ‘one size fits all’ approach cannot be applied to all communities. Why for example is Gilberdyke credited with having a Health Centre and none of those villages within a 5-mile radius having the same facility, even when this is clearly shared? One can look at Newport, which has properties closer to the Gilberdyke Health Centre than some of those in the Parish of Gilberdyke. It would be perhaps better to consider the distances from the Health Centre, rather than whether its location falls within one village or another. The Health Centre acknowledges that it is unable to take on large numbers of new patients. The Centre itself is built on a bend with inadequate parking which is already posing a danger to pedestrians and motorists alike, when patients park on this bend when visiting their GP.

There is also a question of the 36% of those employed and living in Gilberdyke who work in the parish. There is also a high ratio of jobs available, to the number of employed residents – in this case 112 jobs per 100 people employed, therefore meaning there are 12% more jobs available in Gilberdyke, than people working. The Parish Council is curious as to the accuracy of these figures and how up to date is the information on which they are based.

The accuracy of the maps in the document is also flawed giving a false impression, as the housing developments totalling approximately 149 houses constructed during the last 4 years are not included.

There is also confusion with the distances to the nearest JSP settlement where Gilberdyke is 5.5miles from Howden whilst Newport is 9.4miles from Elloughton/Brough - but Newport is less than 2 miles from Gilberdyke so why the big difference in the figures.

If one looks at the LDF Transport Development Plan it would appear that the village of Gilberdyke is ignored completely, the does not this fit with the Smaller Settlements Development Plan, which identifies Gilberdyke at the ‘top of the list’ for priority 1market village development. These two documents are clearly not compatible in the respect of Gilberdyke.

Conclusions

There is a suggestion that some of the information provided in the document is flawed, and very little evidence of ‘on the ground research’ or consultation with the community.

There is very little consent from within the community of Gilberdyke for any further industrial development on the industrial estate to the south of the village, the opposite being the case.

Further housing development is also a very contentious issue with again very little support for any more developments. Numerous surveys show a limited degree of support for limited ‘low cost’ housing development, but very little support for any other type of housing.

I therefore request that the village and community of Gilberdyke be removed from the list of Market Villages, and that no further significant industrial or housing developments be imposed upon us, until such a time that the wrongs of the past are corrected and there is significant investment in village infrastructure. This is to include a link road from the industrial estate, car parking solutions at the Health Centre and shops, and the potential overcrowding issues at Gilberdyke School are addressed.

In the meantime it is requested that there is no housing development outside the existing development limits, until such a time that the above has been achieved. It is also requested that Gilberdyke be re-categorised as a ‘Rural Village’ for the purposes of the LDF.