A PROPOSED new housing estate of 42 homes at an ‘important entrance’ to Skipton was on the wrong side of the bypass and could set a precedent for more development, heard councillors.

It had been a mistake giving outline planning permission for the linear, canal side site off Broughton Road back in 2016 for up to 20 homes, and now was the time to put it right heard Craven District Council’s planning committee on Monday.

Councillors, meeting face to face for the first time since March last year, also raised concerns about safety on the road which in the last 10 years had seen two fatalities on the nearby ‘Niffany Bends and a separate incident where a lorry driver died after their vehicle came off the flyover and landed partially in the canal.

Members initially supported a deferral to carry out a site visit, but were told government coronavirus restrictions prevented them from taking place, even though it was claimed they were being carried out by the neighbouring Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, which includes land in Craven.

Members were recommended by officers to approve the plan by Mandale Homes for the site, which is allocated for housing in the Craven Local Plan, but after about two hours of debate, rejected it by eight votes to one on the grounds of overdevelopment, visual impact and the lack of a ‘proper’ traffic survey.

The site, to the north west of Clay Hall, would include a mixture of one, two,three and four bedroom homes, including 13 affordable, and with access onto Broughton Road, the meeting heard.

Planning consultant David Marjoram, for the developer, said there was no difference between the open market and affordable housing in the quality development.

He said the developer had provided affordable homes even though it was not necessary and announced there would be a provision of just less than £140,000 towards education provision - an addition that some members claimed was news to them.

He added that principle of development had been established, it was allocated for housing in the local plan, had been previously approved in outline, although now expired, the meeting was told, and worked out at 33 homes per hectare - which was within the Government guidelines of a minimum of 30 per hectare.

A speed survey was carried out in July, 2019, and noted that the presence of the bends, close to the proposed access, formed a ‘natural’ traffic calming measure. No objections were raised by the highways authority.

Ward Councillor Chris Rose said too many homes were proposed and she also had concerns about safety on the road pointing out it was was not wide enough for a central island for turning into the new development.

Earlier, the meeting had heard from objector, Jenny Andrews, who while saying she was not opposed to the site being developed, there were several issues of concern over what was being proposed, specifically, safety issues on that part of Broughton Road.

Cllr Alan Sutcliffe, who initially moved deferral for a site visit before then moving refusal, after hearing a visit was not possible, described the site as one of the ‘blackest accident spots in Skipton and the whole of Craven and the fact it had been allocated in the local plan for housing did not diminish that.

It was also, he said, a ‘colossal’ overdevelopment of the site.

Cllr Andy Brown described the plan as ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’ in that there were parts of it he liked, such as nature conservation, a hedgehog run and footpath and cycling paths to connect up with existing, but he had concerns about safety on the road which he described as an ‘accident blackspot’.

Skipton member, Cllr Robert Heseltine said in all intents and purposes the application was a new one as the outline consent had now expired, and should be treated as such.

“This application jumps the bypass into open countryside and is a precedent that should not be allowed. It was a mistake at the time to approve it, and now we have the opportunity to put it right,” he said.

“It is a severely cramped development outside the town limits.”

Cllr Richard Pringle expressed astonishment that the first he had known about the education contribution of £140,000 had been when Mr Marjoram had mentioned it - although it was later pointed out to him that it was included in the report to committee.

He also believed that the developer would appeal a refusal decision as Mr Marjoram had interjected during the debate that he had spent ‘two and a half years’ on the application and that the developer was not minded to change it now.

What was needed was a ‘proper speed survey’ said Cllr Pringle and not one carried out by the developer. “People have died on this stretch of road, the least we can do is get a proper speed survey," he said.

Planning manager, Neville Watson, pointed out to members that the latest application had been submitted in January 2017 and it was not the developers fault that it was only being decided now, more than a year after the outline planning consent had expired. That was a factor that needed to be taken into consideration, he said.

He added that the advice from the planning solicitor Alex Strickland, who attended the meeting remotely, was that site visits could still not go ahead.

Despite that, Cllr Carl Lis abstained from the final vote, for the first time, saying a site visit could have resulted in a different eventual result and he could not understand why one could not take place when they were in the national park.