by John Hendon
PLANNING chiefs at Warrington have refused permission for extensions at a former stationmaster's house in an isolated Green Belt location.
They were told that the extensions, taking into a previous extension, would result in a 125 per cent increase in the floor area of Station House, Station Road, Penketh.
This would amount to a disproportionate increase in living accommodation in the Green Belt.
Members of the borough council's planning committee were told the house had only two near neighbours - Railway Cottage and the Ferry Inn.
The extensions proposed would have no harmful impact on either, but they would result in the 125 per cent increase in floor area.
No objections had been received to the scheme which involved the former stationmaster's house at the old Fiddler's Ferry Railway Station.
Follow @warringtonworld
They were told that the extensions, taking into a previous extension, would result in a 125 per cent increase in the floor area of Station House, Station Road, Penketh.
This would amount to a disproportionate increase in living accommodation in the Green Belt.
Members of the borough council's planning committee were told the house had only two near neighbours - Railway Cottage and the Ferry Inn.
The extensions proposed would have no harmful impact on either, but they would result in the 125 per cent increase in floor area.
No objections had been received to the scheme which involved the former stationmaster's house at the old Fiddler's Ferry Railway Station.
Follow @warringtonworld
Share this article
| Tweet |
3 Responses to "Green belt plan thrown out" 
|
said this on 13 Oct 2011 2:03:30 PM BST
This decision could only have been taken in the Alice in Wonderland (or Grovesian) World of WBC's planners. For it was they who turned down, on environmental grounds, two applications to build on greenbelt land in Lymm, after which they decided not to use their powers to prevent the unchuffed developer fencing off the previously open site, and eventually (who knows why?) they sanctioned a development of three storey houses on the site, claiming the fence had become an eyesore. Yet they reject this small, harmless and remote extension, to which there have been no objections, because if built, it added to a series of much earlier extensions would have doubled the original size of the house. Why were the planners hung up on the cummulative increase, when they had already allowed one once prominent local developer to double the size of his house to which they gave consent in one fell swoop? Horses for courses or planners for developers?
|
Author)|
said this on 14 Oct 2011 9:07:06 AM BST
Obviously the house owner should have subcontracted a certain developer or other to fasttrack the application. We can all complain about the planning department but at least we know how things work with them. There can be no excuse for doing anything other than whatever the hell you like if you do it through the right people and in the right way.
|
|
said this on 14 Oct 2011 10:17:19 AM BST
More to the point, and with our previously respected (why I'll never know) developer's last venture in mind, it is obvious the plans for this small and innocuous scheme did not suffer the same trashing fate as those of the originally sanctioned scheme in Marton Close debacle.
|
