Residents of the Howardian Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) have claimed the ancestral owners of a 12th century stately home are “trying to extract a quart from a pretty pint pot” by building more houses than the area can cope with to cover the grade I listed property’s £1.4m restoration bill.
The concerns raised by residents of Oulston, near Easingwold, come two years after residents of nearby Coxwold unsuccessfully pleaded with planners to stop the Wombwell family from “sacrificing” their village to secure the future of Newburgh Priory by building two housing developments.
Although the Oulston scheme and a further housing development at Yearsley to provide conservation funding for the priory had been approved three years ago, Hambleton District councillors had to reconsider them this week as it was granted before the council’s Local Plan was adopted.
A meeting of the authority’s planning committee heard the schemes were in locations that would have seen them rejected had it not been that they were needed to earn funds for the conservation of the former Augustian priory, which is thought to be the resting place of Oliver Cromwell.
A report to the meeting stated such “enabling housing developments” were being considered by all the large estates in the AONB to address their significant conservation bills.
An agent for the estate said the developments in Coxwold, Yearsley and Oulston were needed to open up Newburgh Priory as a wedding destination to fund the ongoing preservation of the buildings.
She said many of the buildings were in need of repair and ventures launched by the Wombwell family, such as a tearoom and a temporary wedding venue, were “a drop in the ocean” compared to the £1.4m of repairs needed. She added bank lending was not viable and sufficiently large grants were unavailable.
However, the meeting heard Oulston residents questioned whether the scheme was justified as “enabling developments”, as the Wombwell family owned Oulston Hall and a farmhouse which had been lying empty for years and allowed to decay.
Nick Eleanor, chair of Oulston Parish Meeting, told councillors planning rules stipulated “properties should be considered, rather than the owners’ needs” and the scale of the development could harm the character of the village.
He said residents had likened to the plan to “extracting a quart from a pretty pint pot”.
Ward councillor Philippa James said while there were a number of amenities in Coxwold, there were none in Oulston, apart from a village hall, and no public transport.
Calling for the applicants to create a play park in the village, she said: “Nine houses in this village represents about a 30 per cent increase, which doesn’t fit with the scale and the function of the village. Oulston is not getting anything out of this at all.”
However, as councillors unanimously approved the Yearsley and Oulston schemes, Councillor John Noone said: “If we don’t grant this part of this enabling scheme the whole thing falls, so it is imperative that we do.”
Be the first to comment