Councillors have sided with local residents and rejected plans for more than 100 new homes amid concerns about access to the development.
Members of Selby and Ainsty area planning committee voted against the new housing in Sherburn-in-Elmet despite North Yorkshire Council planning officers recommending approval.
A total of 106 houses were proposed on land to the south of Bartlett View and Rochester Row.
The meeting had earlier heard from opponents of the scheme, including local resident John Irving, who said 230 people had submitted objections.
He said the majority of those were not objecting to the building of new houses but to the access from the existing estate, with the former Selby Local Plan proposing two new junctions onto the main road, Milford Road, from any new housing on the site.
He added: “We are told this is not possible because the developers do not own the land fronting Milford Road, so the local community has to solve the developers’ access problems and suffer the consequences.”
Sherburn-in-Elmet town councillor, Alex Tant-Brown, also raised the issue of access and the loss of the green space that would be lost if new accesses were created from Bartlett Way and Rochester Row.
The councillor said North Yorkshire Council had an interest in the land that would allow access onto the main road and should work with the developers, Persimmon and Redrow, to ensure this happened.
“Driving high traffic load access routes through a well-loved, unique and tranquil public open space, which has unfenced play equipment attached to them, does not support our community’s health and well-being.
“It generates significant risk for the most vulnerable users, children, who may inadvertently wander from the play area into the path of oncoming vehicles.”
The meeting heard that access from Milford Way would require more of the land surrounding the town to be developed.
Speaking in favour of the application, planning agent Mark Johnson, said the developers were in discussion about extending the development area, but no contracts had been signed.
He said multiple changes had been made to the application to address concerns, and the access routes had been deemed safe by highways experts.
He added: “There is a significant increase in public space being made available as part of this development.”
Several councillors, however, spoke out in support of the residents’ concerns.
Councillor Arnold Warneken said: “We’ve had a group of residents and the town council eloquently put across their concerns and I personally feel we cannot just ignore what’s been presented to us.”
Councillor Karl Arthur added: “I’ve got concerns about the entrance to the site.
“It looked very narrow to me and it’s going to cause a lot of chaos if that gets the go-ahead.”
Councillor Bob Packham added that the level of public criticism of the scheme was justified on the grounds of highway safety.
Council officers repeatedly questioned the decision to refuse the application, saying the authority could have difficulties defending the ruling if it went to appeal, however a majority of councillors still voted against the plans.