Planning refused on Manor Vale development

The building of six, three bedroom terraced dwellings on the Manor Vale Lane site was refused by Ryedale District Council at their planning meeting on May 11th.

Below you will reasons for the refusal:

There were 18 public comments made – 16 were against and 2 were neutral.

What happens now to the site, which is a complete eyesore, remains unknown.

Many locals will be furious that the felling of the mature boundary trees by the developer it seems now was for nothing. Perhaps the developer may appeal.

An opportune moment to receive two photographs this morning of Manor Vale in more idyllic times.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to clear out all those council depot buildings and restore the site to a more natural state, extend the green corridor of the ancient woodland and provide an idyllic setting for the band room?

Your thoughts as always welcome below.



5 Responses to Planning refused on Manor Vale development

  1. Julie May 18, 2017 at 2:33 pm #

    Would be very interesting to know if, by removing the mature trees, the developer has made the site more liable to flooding and if so, would the developer therefore be responsible for any damage caused by flooding to the existing houses in Manor Vale? Removing the trees seemed a strange thing to do as surely the bank side is more liable to erode now and allow more water to wash down into Manor Vale.

  2. D.Birch May 19, 2017 at 8:15 pm #

    When the contractor was removing the trees some of the asbestos roofs of the old council depot were damaged. This releases asbestos fibres into the environment (fresh break marks are visible). The asbestos needs to be made safe.

    On the land, wood chippings are being stored. In the event of a flood situation these will wash down and block the drains.

  3. Jim Rivis May 22, 2017 at 1:37 pm #

    Why are trees being removed if planning permission was refused ?

    • admin May 23, 2017 at 2:02 pm #

      Because he owns the land and none of them had TPOs (Tree Protection Orders). He took down what he was allowed to do apparently under Forestry Commission rules and did this with two periods of felling. It is quite ludicrous that mature but safe trees can be felled at the whim of a here today gone tomorrow developer who is only interested in making a quick buck imo

      • Jim Rivis May 23, 2017 at 2:23 pm #

        One wonders at the motivations and to what extent a lack of necessity but an act of projecting feelings through such destructive means plays a part. Some years ago, while driving across the hills to the next town here in Vermont, USA, I came across a 20 acre swath of natural forest land cut down to the ground and the timber removed. The owner did it out of anger concerning a dispute over the taxation of the property. Neighboring homes lost their landscape for the next 30 years ! Another man, a dairy farmer neighbour told me quite emphatically that if he felt like having a ‘chemical plant’ build on his acreage, then he would ‘damned well donit !’

        All of these actions reflecting a complete lack of responsibility to the land and it’s inhabitants, flora, fauna and human and, especially to the future. Those who have pocketed substantial cheques and will, annually, continue to do so by allowing fracking on their lands, such as at Kirby Misperton continue this heinous lack of forethought.

google-site-verification: google7d15a7ad03ac6ad9.html