A WARRINGTON couple face the prospect of having to tear up a garden area at the rear of their home – because it has resulted in the loss of an important wildlife habitat.
Planners say the riverside development – which includes a brick-built potting shed, wall and concrete footpath – is not environmentally sustainable.
“It is considered expedient to pursue enforcement action for the reinstatement of the river bank and the natural habitat,” they say.
The development is at Mr and Mrs John Speakman’s home in Clay Lane, Burtonwood and extends behind the homes of several neighbours.
They made a retrospective planning application after a similar application was refused almost a year ago.
Planning officers say the unauthorised development does not harm the green belt nor the living conditions of nearby residents. There were no objections on highways grounds, nor from the environmental health department. The Environment Agency did not object – although they said it was possible an active water vole habitat on Phipps Brook had been unwittingly destroyed as a result of removing the natural riverbank.
But the borough council’s natural environment officer objected and there were also objections from six neighbours and Warrington North MP Helen Jones.
Members of the borough’s planning committee decided to refuse permission after being told the development conflicted directly with the council’s objectives of enhancing and conserving wildlife habitat.
The committee heard two large trees and shrubs have been removed and the habitats of toads, frogs, newts, ducks, voles, hedgehogs and birds which had lived and bred on the site for years had been destroyed.
A WARRINGTON couple face the prospect of having to tear up a garden area
at the rear of their home - because it has resulted in the loss of an
important wildlife habitat.
Couple may have to tear up garden
1616 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.
16 Comments
Have I got this right – they made a planning application for a similar project and had it turned down.They then carried out this work and applied for retrospective permission.
If that is the case, I have no sympathy for them
Actually, the first applicatiion was also made retrospectively – which of course is not against the law.
But the first one was refued so why didn’t they take heed, this is happening elsewhere and needs to be stamped out in my opinion otherwise it will be a free for all!
“Planning officers say the unauthorised development does not harm the green belt nor the living conditions of nearby residents. There were no objections on highways grounds, nor from the environmental health department. The Environment Agency did not object……..But the borough council’s natural environment officer objected and there were also objections from six neighbours”
So it appears that a local council jobsworth and some NIMBY neighbours can over-rule all the experts and convince our planning committee that a few ducks and frogs justify taking expensive enforcement action against someone who put up a shed (which wouldn’t normally be subject to ANY planning control) without realising that it would need planning permission.
If I were the homeowner I’d replace the brick build shed which apparently is considered a permanent structure which needs permission with an eyesore of a rusty corrugated iron Nissen hut which wouldn’t – and let the neighbours look at that all day long.
Glad to see that enforcement action has been taken lets hope that the Council makes sure they reinstate the previous habitat
Again without any photograps the general public can only go on what’s being said by others here (who probably havn’t seen the shed anyway) Retrospective planning applications are not a cardinal sin and especially when refusals are on the grounds of potential loss of water vole habitat.
Hmm Inky the Environmental Officer is an expert in their field and ensuring that wildlife habitat is protected is a very important part of their decision making. The Environmental Agency have their own parameters to work to when commenting on such application and when for example they are putting forward their applications/plans etc. have to take note and advice from this expert. Just because they don’t object under their criteria doesn’t mean that they are making a judgement call on wildlife, highways or anything else, they are commenting on for example potential flooding, pollution, collapse of brook bank etc.
Perhaps we need to stop farming because of field mice decimation. As for experts, does cllr Settle then think that David Cameron is an expert?
Ah but more to the point Silver Surfer, does anybody think that Cllr Settle is an expert.
Field Mice aren’t endangered as far as I know. And what expertise are you suggesting that David Cameron has – do you mean the PM?
Crops to to feed people versus a reduction in non-endangered rodents – hardly the same as the loss of wildlife habitat involved in this, is it Silver Surfer?
This guy put up a shed, something which any homeowner is entitled to do without planning permission. He also did some landscaping to his own garden (part of which happens to be a river bank), again something any homeowner has the right to do. But because the neighbours don’t like it, and he built the shed out of bricks, they’ve objected to a “permanent structure” and thrown in a whole load of hypothetical eco clap-trap to make it look like they’re not just pathetic NIMBYs. The guy has done the right thing and applied for planning permission once he was told he needed it, got turned down, made another application (which must have been different from the first and incorporated proposed changes), got that turned down too. So what, I wonder, is the site going to look like once the council have the shed torn down and the garden torn up? Hope the NIMBYs will be happy looking at that! Maybe the landowner will leave his gate open and invite some travellers in, they seem to get away with building whatever they want wherever the want it!
Inky Pete:-
I not an expert to the level of the planners, environmental officer etc but I do sit on the DMC (main planning committee) and I have sat on the Wednesday sub-planning for six months and have 30 months planning committee experience. I am have also been trained by Cheshire Wildlife in Water Vole Habitat and completed surveys throughout the Sankey Valley which extended into Burtonwood. This area is ideal as a site for the Water Vole.
The decision made last week for 2012/20212 stated that
The proposed retrospective development has resulted in the loss of important wildlife habitat alongside the adjacent watercourse Phipps Brook. The proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (para. 118) and has resulted in significant harm to biodiversity objectives. It is not considered that the need for and benefits of the development in this location outweigh the loss of important bankside habitat.
The proposal is not therefore in accordance with the following policies of the Warrington UDP:
Policy DCS1 Development Control Strategy
Policy GRN2 Environmental Protection and Enhancement
Policy GRN13 Riverside and Canalside Development
I haven’t been down to this site recently although I have run past in training sessions many times in the past and looking at multi-map this is does not look like a small garden, the outline plans show a large area. In addition this property has 7 applications registered on the planning system since 2005.
2004/04479 – Two storey side extension comprising a sauna/gym and bin store on lower ground; 2004/05620 – Proposed two storey side extension, single storey plant room to serve the…
2005/05632 – Proposed detached triple garage with attic room above……
2005/06598 – Proposed detached triple garage……
2005/06652 – Proposed boundary wall , bench and litter bin…….
2011/18827 – Retrospective change in use of land to domestic curtilage, construction of a pot
2012/20212 – Retrospective application for change in use of land to domestic curtilage, const
It’s just my personal view but I would say that there does appear to be a lot going on at this site over the years don’t you think?
Just a thought, you don’t think that the nature of the various planning applications that Cllr Settle has outlined for the property, sauna, triple garage etc, have made the neighbours jealous and hence their objections to the garden shed. Also in fairness to Cllr Settle, further to my earlier post, he does seem to be an expert.
He’s built a concrete path (and water supply underneath) on the riverbank, and built the shed on land the ownership of which is disputed. It’s astonishing that the EA didn’t object – the idea that anyone can build a concrete path along any bit of riverbank (whether they own it or not) is ridiculous.
I’m still learning OMIO ….. I remember my economics lecturer in Coventry saying ‘The more you learn in Economics the more you realise how much there is still to learn’ If I have learnt anything its that this quote is applicable to every walk of life. The only time this stops is perhaps when your pulse stops beating -but as Jeremy Clarkson might say” ‘there are some that say” you may carry on learning after that as well.