PLANS to develop a former depot building that was last used during the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 2001 has sparked concerns.

A developer proposes to build 25 bungalows following the demolition of warehouse buildings at the old depot in Sowerby.

But when plans go in front of Hambleton district councillors, they are being recommended to refuse it because of access and car parking fears.

Blue Oak Homes Ltd have submitted plans to develop the site, which was used as a distribution centre during the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

The bungalows would be available for over 60s, laid out around a communal area.

A parking space would sit in front of each bungalow, and visitor parking is allocated near the entrance.

However, there are many public objections. Residents believe it is an “over-development”, and the access plans are “poorly thought out” as the cars parked at present make the access too narrow for large vehicles.

Plans for car parking have also been criticised, as the level of parking proposed is below the current North Yorkshire County Council design standards.

An application for the demolition of one dwelling and the depot building for the construction of 47 dwellings with parking was refused in 2013 and a further appeal was dismissed.

That was on the grounds it would “integrate poorly with the existing neighbouring development and appear unduly cramped.”

In relation to access, there were concerns on the impact the development would have on living conditions in Admirals Court – a short, narrow cul-de-sac that carries a small amount of traffic.

It was agreed it would generate increased traffic, resulting in “harmful levels of noise and disturbance to residents”.

However, Sowerby Parish Council and the Highways Authority remain opposed to any development, believing Victoria Avenue is unsuitable for increased traffic.

The character of the development has also sparked concerns, and despite a 40 per cent affordable housing target, developers have allocated none.

The report to councillors concludes: states: “A lack of affordable housing and unsuitable access should lead to a recommendation of refusal.”