Posted by: swinemoor | September 12, 2015

We Want Southwood!

Beverley Guardian Letter of the Week 14 August 2015

Beverley Guardian Letter of the Week 14 August 2015

In a slight departure from the usual subject matter of this blog, Beverley’s common lands, we at NSH will take a look at the East Riding of Yorkshire’s ’emerging’ Local Development Plan and the masterplans for the South of the town. Whilst these do not affect any of Beverley’s commons directly, the masterplans do not include an area of land, with the suggested name of ‘Southwood’ that was mooted as Beverley’s sixth common, and a buffer between the ever-growing town and Hull’s urban sprawl.

Southwood, was first mooted during the 1980s when the road that eventually became Woodmansey Mile, the original Beverley southern bypass, was proposed. However, it never materialised and was really only resurrected in 2011 by the Beverley Renaissance Partnership, who proposed that the green spaces in the new proposed development areas South of the town be combined and coalesced into a contiguous area to be designated as new common. The East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Director of Planning, Alan Menzies, said at the time that the council would be willing to explore the issues with the Partnership, however, earlier this year it became obvious that the idea of Southwood had been dropped from the proposals. In June John Bird, Chair of the Beverley Renaissance Partnership, was again calling for a new vision for the town, including a new common to the South, when it became clear that only around 10 hectares of greenspace were to be included in the proposed development and this would be mainly playing fields in the flood zones and grassed areas on corners and along cycleways. This is far from the vision proposed by the Partnership and will do nothing to prevent Beverley merging with Cottingham and becoming just another suburb of Hull.

Letter Beverley Guardian 14th August 2015

Letter Beverley Guardian 14th August 2015

The proposals themselves, and the very high density of the housing proposed for the area, are causing a lot of disquiet in the town. On the 14th August there were two letters in The Beverley Guardian, articulating the points made by the Partnership regarding Southwood and the high density of the proposed housing in the Figham Springs area. Following this there has been a couple of consultation events, however, as ever, ERYC are not really listening to the people of the town. Attendees were told that the proposed development was a done deal and they could really only comment on the colours of the bricks in the development. This contrasts starkly with how ERYC deal with the developers who are trying to make wholesale changes to a planning permission that has already been granted by ERYC for Land East of Keldmarsh Primary School 13/02723/STOUT. The conditions imposed by ERYC involve the submission of an masterplan to ERYC , the prior construction of the spine road, wider access to the development area (with no ransom strips) and the provision of childrens’ play spaces, youth and adult provision. All of the above should be agreed before development proceeds but the developers want these conditions removed! These proposals are being fully consulted upon by ERYC, even though they involve a disbenefit to the community, yet the community itself can only ‘tweak’ things when they comment: the example given by the Planning Officers present being the colours of the bricks! Even the planning notice at the site does not tell the story: it tells you the numbers of the planning conditions but nothing about what is proposed, however, it does (we assume to fill space) tell you what ERYC’s role as an employer and service provider is! A brief summary of the proposed planning conditions to be removed would be much more useful in our opinion.

Keldmarsh Planning Notice

Keldmarsh Planning Notice

In order to ensure that ERYC engage in meaningful consultation on these related issues it is important to let ERYC know that you are not happy with what they are doing. We need to ensure that our voice is heard: Woodmansey Parish Council has offered no objection to the planning condition removals near Keldmarsh School, even though they allow development without the guaranteed provision of children’s play space and Youth and Adult provision. Woodmansey Parish Council is Chaired by Kerri Harold, who is also a Conservative member of ERYC, where she sits on the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee.

If you object to the removal of planning conditions at Keldmarsh School, please visit ERYC’s Planning Portal and make sure you state ‘object’ in your comments. Youth provision in the town is already poor and the building of new houses without additional provision will not improve the situation.

We at NSH would also like you to object to the Local Development Plan and this can be done by either signing Beate Willar’s petition or by visiting the link on ERYC’s website.

If you wish to comment on the plan directly, please use the contact addresses and emails on the ERYC page. Beate Willar also has exemplar letter you may wish to use (or edit) and this can be found HERE.

You can also help the campaign to address the deficiencies in plans for the South of Beverley by sending a link to the petition.
Only by doing this can we send a message to ERYC that we want Southwood, not unimaginative, chock-a-block developments that will cause Beverley to merge with Hull. A new common will ensure this cannot happen!


  1. Reblogged this on blindsnapper.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: