Dear Sirs
Cawood Parish Council object to application NY/2016/0251/FUL proposing a Waste Transfer Station at the former
Stillingfleet Mine site. We do so for the following reasons:
1. The planning consent for this site and the other Selby Coalfield sites required the sites to be returned to
agriculture when mining finished. This should be done. To allow a subsequent development to piggyback
on the fact that the land has not been returned to agriculture is to perpetuate an injustice. As a bare
minimum the application should be considered as if this were a Greenfield site
2. The application includes screening and outdoor storage of 75,000T of material. This will inevitably lead to a
noise and dust nuisance as the material is tipped, picked up, screened and re-handled. This is all heavy
industrial work
3. The 50 additional HGV movements per day will place an additional burden on local infrastructure. Of
particular concern to us is Cawood Bridge. NYCC have recently spent £1m refurbishing the bridge but it
remains an essentially Victorian structure and has a 10T weight limit. There have been many problems in
the past with enforcing the weight limit and rogue vehicles are still a problem. The temptation for vehicles
bringing waste from the Sherburn direction to use Cawood Bridge as a shortcut rather than going round
through either Selby or Tadcaster will inevitably prove too much for some drivers leading to damage to the
bridge and further expense for NYCC
4. When the coalfield was in operation all coal was removed at Gascoigne Wood, not at Stillingfleet or the
other four shaft sites which were for men and equipment access only. The proposed HGV movements and
surface handling of material are both far in excess of what the NCB and subsequently British Coal were
allowed to do during mining operations. In these important respects the proposed development would
have more impact than the mining operations so to allow it would be a retrograde step
(and further submissions July 2019 in tandem to Escrick PC submission)