by David Skentelbery
CONTROVERSIAL plans for 10 three-storey "affordable homes" are to come before Warrington planning chiefs next week.
Members of the planning committee have already considered the proposals once - but decided to inspect the site, adjoining the Farmer's Arms pub in Rushgreen Road, Lymm, after more than 40 objectors packed into the Town Hall.
The inspection has now taken place and a decision is likely to be made on Wednesday.
Nearby residents say the site should be retained as open land - and they have the backing of local councillor Ian Marks.
He says he supports the principle of quality affordable housing but would prefer to see this particular site retained as open land.
Eight years ago, two separate plans to build houses or apartments on the site were refused on the grounds the development would have a damaging effect on the open character of the area and harmful impact on trees on the site.
Soon after, a 6ft high fence was erected around the land, despite neighbours protests that it was an eyesore.
Now planning officers - who are recommending the scheme be approved - say it would be difficult to justify refusing consent on the grounds of loss of open space because the site is fenced off and no longer making a positive contribution to the area.
In fact, the fence itself detracts from the visual amenities of the area., they say.
Members of the planning committee have already considered the proposals once - but decided to inspect the site, adjoining the Farmer's Arms pub in Rushgreen Road, Lymm, after more than 40 objectors packed into the Town Hall.
The inspection has now taken place and a decision is likely to be made on Wednesday.
Nearby residents say the site should be retained as open land - and they have the backing of local councillor Ian Marks.
He says he supports the principle of quality affordable housing but would prefer to see this particular site retained as open land.
Eight years ago, two separate plans to build houses or apartments on the site were refused on the grounds the development would have a damaging effect on the open character of the area and harmful impact on trees on the site.
Soon after, a 6ft high fence was erected around the land, despite neighbours protests that it was an eyesore.
Now planning officers - who are recommending the scheme be approved - say it would be difficult to justify refusing consent on the grounds of loss of open space because the site is fenced off and no longer making a positive contribution to the area.
In fact, the fence itself detracts from the visual amenities of the area., they say.
Share this article
| Tweet |
6 Responses to ""Affordable homes" controversy" 
|
said this on 23 Oct 2011 11:12:46 AM BST
So basically, if they approve this the rule would then be that you can build anything you like on land considered attractive so long as you make it unattractive first.
Why is this even being considered?
|
Author)|
said this on 23 Oct 2011 6:12:30 PM BST
Because our persistent planners want to finally square the circle to complete the last chapter of their Manual to Developers: We have Ways and Means of Approving Anything You May Want To Build?????. In their handling of the Marton Close debacle our PPs broke virtually every tenet in the once open, transparent and democratic planning process, bar one. It would be interesting to find out if the ‘master stroke’ on this affordable housing site was down to the developer or the planners, or maybe it was another covert collective effort as happened on the Marton Close/ Twiss Green Lane development?
|
|
said this on 23 Oct 2011 4:38:14 PM BST
Do you not know that Warrington Planners are a law unto themselves. It's quite clear that a decision has been made and the site visit was simply cosmetic in an attempt to fool the residents. How autocratic can they get! Democracy means simply nothing.
|
|
said this on 23 Oct 2011 6:26:57 PM BST
Note to any corrupt planners out there.
Buy some land. Propose a development that no one will want. Get refused. Build a fence around it then re-apply. Job done.
|
|
said this on 23 Oct 2011 11:06:42 PM BST
Makes you wonder if they are all working together sometimes. I guess that's also why the council put their OWN fence up around the green field/open space known locally around here as 'Cartwrights Field' last year. It has been used by locals for as long as I can remeber and as kids we played there too as have many other kids over the years. The council handed it over to the housing bods for £1 to build AFFORDABLE HOMES on ... locals objected and stalled it and are still objecting and in the process of putting in an application for some sort of open space protection so the council hane now fenced it all off to keep people off. WHY ? The wildlife is flourishing even more now though apparently ;) I guess that fence must also have been put there as a tactical move to detract from the visul amenity too then and also by stopping kids, walkers and everyone else using it so they can eventually say 'well no one uses it now' and the same as in the news story for Lymm. Pretty disgusting really and who can blame developers for doing it when they see the council doing the very same thing same themselves. Such is life these days it seems !?!
|
|
said this on 24 Oct 2011 12:00:07 AM BST
No doubt the planning dept will be citing 'special circumstances' which in their eyes is 'anything they wish'. In this case the 'excuse' will be the provision of much needed 'affordable' homes. But will they be affordable to the people who really need them? The quite recent development of 'affordable' social housing at Walton are up for rent at prices on a par with the private sector. The 3 storey design is not popular and the floor plan doesn't make for easy living - I'm told the kitchens are too small to accommodate the usual range of appliances and that fridge-freezers and tumble dryers have to be kept in bedrooms. These design houses are not really fit for purpose so why build more of them? Is it purely so that once the small % 'affordable' quota is met planning permission for the vast % of 'aspirational' housing can be given?
|
