ANGRY residents have lost a battle to block plans for 10 three-storey “affordable” homes on open land adjoining the Farmer’s Arms pub at Lymm.
Warrington borough council’s planning committee has approved the application despite opposition from more than 40 residents who packed into the council chamber.
Local councillors were divided on the issue. Cllr Ian Marks and Cllr Peter Powell backed the objectors but Cllr Sheila Woodyatt and Cllr Bob Barr supported developers Great Places Housing Group.
Officers recommended the scheme be approved – and councillors were warned that if they refused permission there would be an appeal which would be likely to be successful and result in costs being awarded against the council.
Cllr Marks said he supported the principle of quality, affordable housing but would prefer to see the 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 around the land, despite neighbours protests that it was an eyesore.
Planning officers said it would be difficulty to justify refusing consent on the grounds of loss of open space because the site was fenced off and no longer making a positive contribution to the area.
In fact, the fence itself detracted from the visual amenities of the area.
Residents claimed erecting the fence was a cynical and insulting act and that the land should be retained as a green, community space.
Cllr Woodyatt said the original plan for 17 dwelling would have been over-development of the site. She understood the concerns of the residents but the land was privately owned and there was nothing the council could do. If the plan was refused it would be replaced by a less desirable one.
She believed the development would be a good one – the first genuine proposal for affordable homes in Lymm.
Cllr Barr said the only way the site could be preserved as open land would be for someone to win the lottery and buy it. The cost would be “millions”.
The committee voted unanimously to approve the scheme.
ANGRY residents have lost a battle to block plans for 10 three-storey
"affordable" homes on open land adjoining the Farmer's Arms pub at Lymm.
Residents lose affordable homes fight
44 Comments
Share.
About Author
Gary Skentelbery
Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.
4 Comments
Could be worse, a lot worse, it could be a gypsy site.
What did you expect? You should expect anything less from WBC and its Planning Dept. Residents and consultation are at the bottom of the pile. Role on May 2012 when you can exercise your right and get rid of the current administration.
“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.” How does a mere reduction in numbers of houses not damage ‘the open character of the area’ which was reason enough to block the former application? Was, and if so how was planning permission given for the 6 ft wooden fence? Is the previous application available for scrutiny or was it destroyed along with the many others? Is this another case for the ombudsman??
Given that it was the last administration that ceded control of planning in the borough to the officers guilty of maladministration, coincidentally under the stewardship of Bob Barr, a change of leadership is unlikely to alter the fact that developers can invariably find ways around any refusal of consent. The rule is now that if planning is refused on the grounds that an area is attractive, all developers have to do is deliberately make it unattractive and they’ll have their consent waved through. Another shameful decision.