A CONTROVERSIAL “granny” annexe built on Green Belt land without planning consent can stay in place, Warrington planners have decided.
Planning officers accept that the building – adjoining a semi-detached cottage in Warrington Road, Croft – could be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
But they say it has been built on the site of a former garage that was demolished because its foundations were inadequate.
The use of the building is ancillary to the cottage, with all meals being taken in the cottage. It is to be occupied by a disabled member of the family.
Croft Parish Council had opposed the development on the grounds that it was, in fact, a new building in the Green Belt.
But officers said approving the scheme would enable them to remove permitted development rights from the site and enable the planning authority to control any further development.
The "granny annex" in the Green Belt
Green Belt “granny annexe” approved by planners
66 Comments
6 Comments
But the disabled lady in Stockton Heath with the conservatory bedroom has to pull it down!.
Inconsistencies in the planning dept?
Or Is a matter of who you know?
“Planning officers accept that the building – adjoining a semi-detached cottage in Warrington Road, Croft – could be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
But they say it has been built on the site of a former garage that was demolished because its foundations were inadequate.”
“But officers said approving the scheme would enable them to remove permitted development rights from the site.”
#1 It is self evidently an inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
#2 What is the relevance of inadequate foundations of a former garage to a newly built inappropriate development?
#3 The officers alrady have the powers to remove permitted development rights without having to approve an inappropriate development that was built absent any planning approval.
I agree Sha and yes there seems to be inconsistencies.
Do you remember this story from a few years back where planning was refused even though there were NO objections, not even from the Parish Council. Quite the opposite as people were supporting it and even the mayor at the time (Clr Mike Biggin) asked that extenuating circumstances be considered. But no they still refused it.
I often wonder if the poor gent and his wife had to sell up and move from their working farm simply because the council wouldn’t allow them to build a little bungalow more suited to the ladies long term needs and care 🙁
Sad eh 🙁
http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/2011/08/26/farmer-loses-battle-over-disabled-wife/
As if one could ever forget that heart-breaking story Dizzy. Every time a similar planning application hits the news I remember it and also wonder how those poor people have managed since. If I remember rightly the excuse at the time was that personal circumstances could not be classed as ‘material considerations’ – yet they seem to have been accepted as so in this case.
Also, the lady who needed the ground floor extension got no points for ‘personal circumstances’ and was turned down because of the impact on ‘setting’. What a joke from a planning dept whose town centre regeneration plans CABE refused to support because of the negative ‘setting’ impact!
Right in every detail SHA