Paul Kennedy Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 As is often said, "All developments should have a sense of place". A few traditional style farm cottages, barn conversions etc YES, caravans, commercial vehicles, hundreds of tons of hardcore, NO Anyway, let's see what the committee decides tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 Bottle it no doubt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 or 'Pass the Buck' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 An amazing...or maybe not so...turn of events. Both the Chief Planning Officer and the majority of the Planning Committee did the right thing for ALL parties concerned and for Warrington. More later I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_b Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I can feel a Victor Meldrew saying coming on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Just tell us whether it was over turned or upheld - stop grand standing :redmad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I believe it is a political form of "milking the occassion"!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Phoned up and found out that it was REFUSED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Sorry about that, it was all a bit of a rush this morning as I had to do a telephone conference elsewhere. David will be running the story I guess on the front page in due course and will tell it much much better than I can but the gist is as follows. It was refused, the officers changed their recommendation on the night from approve to refuse after a late objection by the Highways Dept. Members then voted 6-3 to refuse. Guess it will now go to appeal Great turnout of residents at the Town Hall [ 31.01.2008, 14:10: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 WG had theirs on last night (Wed) and even the local TV news covered it (although Mr S would not be filmed as he was concerned he would not get work in the area if he was on TV ????? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 I've just lost the post I was going to post grrr. Gist of it was, travellers special circumstances overruled greenbelt arguement....until the highways objecton which would require more trees to be removed to comply. Mr Groves bit the bullet and reversed his recommendaton, and fairplay to him, given he is now going to have to fight a likely appeal. WBC should look for brownfield sites in order to win an appeal, looking at the Committees voting record it seems 3 Councillors would be agreeable to properly managed sites in their Wards, and we should all applaud their social spirit etc Final point was that from the TV clip it seems North West Regional Assembly :confused: don't live in the real world as you will see from their comment http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7210000/newsid_7218700/7218739.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1 [ 01.02.2008, 08:28: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 All makes sense now re the highways issues Hats off to the planners and committee members for having the backbone and sense to refuse it Just hope they don't back off when it comes to the appeal... PS What beautiful large NEW caravans Mr S has... might become a traveller myself.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 I could go on and on about this one but I won't. Suffice to say that the Council has made a rod for its own back with this one in relation to the appeal. Its only hope - should an appeal be lodged (and it will no doubt because most travellers are awash with undeclared cash) - is that the committee report was so poorly written as to allow lots of wiggle room. The highways decision about visibility splays appears a bit weak if you ask me. If the trees blocking the views at the site entrance are not subject to a TPO, on the travellers land and the site isn't in a Conservation Area then the travellers can fell them immediately and thereby remove the impediment to satisfactory highway visbility splays. Then they resubmit, the Council hasn't a leg to stand on and must - again - recommend approval This whole episode should serve as a "wake up" call for the planning section to do NOW what it should have done about 10 years ago, i.e. identify to satisfactory pikey sites rather than reacting to half-baked proposals on an as-and-when basis. Allegedly the LDF preparation is going on full-steam, and yet I don't recall seeing anything about proposed travellers sites... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Reasons for refusal: Reason The retrospective development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and by definition causes harm to the purposes and objectives of the Green Belt. The development adversely affects the openness of the Green Belt. The very special circumstances put forward by the applicant are not considered to outweigh the resultant harm to the Green Belt. The proposal conflicts with the advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note No.2 (Green Belts) and Policy GRN1 and DCS15 of Warrington Borough Councils? Unitary Development Plan. Reason The existing vehicular access onto Cartridge Lane does not provide adequate visibility splays, (especially to the east). The continued use of the site/access results in harm to the safe operation/use of the highway and conflicts with Policy DCS1 and DCS15 of Warrington Borough Councils Unitary Development Plan. The potential improvement to visibility splays would result in further visual harm to the openness/visual impact of the site in the Green Belt via the removal of the existing mature trees adjacent to the Cartridge Lane boundary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Paul Stop confusing us you originally said travellers special circumstances overruled greenbelt arguement....until the highways objecton which would require more trees to be removed to comply. Which raised McBains blood pressure levels and also got me going a bit... as I thought they had no concerns about the greeb belt. but it appears they did refuse on green-belt issues too. Glad to hear it and don't do that again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Hiya McBain Not only are the traveller community awash with cash ... most of them also pay into a fund which enables the appointment of high powered 'legal' people who specialise in the field (for want of a better word ) if the need ever arises which is something WBC need to be aware of As for your comments re the possible sudden removal of the trees, I agree. Even if there was a TPO on them the travellers may not know as they can't read. It's cold.... and tree wood burns well in a log burner The trees and their 'masking' of the site were part of the arguement for approval in the applicants supporting documents However without the trees the site then becomes more visable and as such the green belt issues etc then may apply a bit more. Either way it's a no win situation for Mr S and his family. Residents and others will not back down and their frustration and anger over this issue will probably only grow and grow until the travellers actually leave. [ 01.02.2008, 19:15: Message edited by: Dismayed ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Hey there Dis, good to know you are still taking an active interest in the lunacy that pervades Warrington This whole episode has got me a bit steamed I must admit, despite my efforts to stick to one of my Resolutions which was not to get angered by the idiocy routinely practiced by Council members and Council officers. However, having a good rant on the forum is proving a bit of a cathartic experience so here goes: The retrospective development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and by definition causes harm to the purposes and objectives of the Green Belt. The development adversely affects the openness of the Green Belt. The very special circumstances put forward by the applicant are not considered to outweigh the resultant harm to the Green Belt. The proposal conflicts with the advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note No.2 (Green Belts) and Policy GRN1 and DCS15 of Warrington Borough Councils? Unitary Development Plan.Oh dear - another example of poor drafting that has made officer's lives a little more difficult. Implicit in this reason for refusal is a recognition that the circumstances put forward by the travellers as reasons why they should be permitted to remain on site were somehow "special". They were not, and are not - I bet that a great many travellers would be able to mount a similar sob story. The reason for refusal ought to have said: The arguments in support of the applicant's retrospective application do not constitute 'special circumstances' sufficient to outweight the general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.As you point out Dis, a bit more thought appears to have gone into the second reason for refusal, but this factor ought to have come to light a lot earlier on in the consideration of this application. Speedy responses by the Highways section (which are widely known for their sloth-like speed) might have saved the Council officers some face at committee and avoided having to draft an approval report in the first place that will now come back to haunt them if there is an appeal. As for retaining legal advice, most travellers will be able to claim legal aid (the favoured cash-cow of the legal profession) and thus don't need to maintain a "war chest" - after all, the poor pikeys really are disadvantaged aren't they? :redmad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Originally posted by Dismayed: Paul Stop confusing us you originally said travellers special circumstances overruled greenbelt arguement....until the highways objecton which would require more trees to be removed to comply. Which raised McBains blood pressure levels and also got me going a bit... as I thought they had no concerns about the greeb belt. but it appears they did refuse on green-belt issues too. Glad to hear it and don't do that again The first reason I listed was not on the original document for obvious reasons. The following was from the original: APPRAISAL Housing Supply Policy HOU1/HOU2/HOU3/Managing the housing supply SPD/GTAA ? additional dwellings would only be approved for a temporary period ? application is for a genuine short term requirement/need ? would be considered as an exception to normal new housing restrictions Green Belt Policy GRN1/DCS15/PPG2 ? residential caravans are by definition inappropriate development in the Green Belt unless very special circumstances outweigh such harm. In addition, a material change of use of land in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it maintains openness. The openness of the Green Belt is harmed, however the extent of that harm limited by the small number of caravans/buildings and the small number/low key appearance of the ancillary buildings. The development has also resulted in encroachment into the countryside, especially in view of the considerable amount of hardsurfacing, which appears over and above that ordinarily required for the manoeuvring/turning/parking of vehicles and/or amenity space for the occupants of the caravans. There is a conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. In visual terms the small-scale nature of the development/the small number of adjoining dwellings is such that it is well screened even during the current winter months, with the main viewpoint obtained directly at the access point off Cartridge Lane. It is likely that during the summer months such views would be obscured and additional planting to the Cartridge Lane boundary would further mitigate more prominent views during the winter months. The amount of visual harm/harm to the openness of the Green Belt is limited and could be further ameliorated by additional planting. Sites for Gypsies and travellers Circular 01/2006 /GTAA - The results of the GTAA assessment identifies an additional need for between 6 and 9 pitches in the Warrington area. The results of the GTAA would form part of the local development framework process in identifying specific sites to match the required number of pitches. Such a process has yet to take place. There is therefore a current need for further pitches within the Borough, however any identification of such provision is unlikely to occur in a short time period. There is no evidence that the applicant has conducted a thorough/systematic search for alternative sites, however in view of the fact that the majority of the land within the Borough, beyond the established urban area is currently allocated as Green belt it is unlikely that were such a search to be undertaken a realistic alternative site is unlikely to materialise. The applicants personal needs Policy DCS15/SOC1 ? a settled base would undoubtedly provide the 6 children currently on site with much improved access to health and educational provision, (as opposed to a travelling from unauthorised site to site). The availability of adjoining pasture/stabling facilities would also be beneficial for the applicants employment needs. Such matters weigh in favour of the proposals. Accessibility to services/facilities Circular 01/2006 ? the site is not within easy reach of shops/services, however government advice in relation to sites in rural/semi-rural locations is clear in advising that they may be acceptable in principle and that LPA s? should be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local services. In this respect services are a short car journey away and sustainability is not purely concerned with distance from services/modes of transport and should be considered in the round, along with the wider benefits of easier access to GPs?/health services/children attending school on a regular basis/the reduction in the need for long distance travelling/possible environmental damage caused by unauthorised encampments. Policy DCS3/LUT20 ?existing mains water/electricity is available on site and there is ample room within the site for parking/turning Policy GRN3/GRN2/GRN22/GRN24 ? existing natural/man made features ensure that views of the caravans/hardsurfaced area are not significant, even during the winter months. Additional tree planting to the northern boundary should ensure that views from Cartridge Lane would also be further mitigated. The conflict with national/local Green Belt policy weighs against the development, as does the amount of hardsurfacing and the physical encroachment into the countryside, (albeit not significantly so). However, the lack of alternative/existing (perhaps more sustainable) sites locally, the applicants personal circumstances (ie; the inevitable return to unauthorised roadside encampments should planning permission be refused), the educational advantages to the children, the easier access to medical services, weigh in favour of the proposal. Overall, it is considered that the negative impacts are outweighed by those matters in favour of the development and very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm to Green Belt policy, however the issues are finely balanced. And with regards to road splays etc, the following was in the original document: Site has excellent access to strategic road network and will not cause congestion/safety problems. Visibility splays have been improved so that to the west a distance a splay of 2 metres by 30 metres is possible, whilst to the east a splay of 2 metres by 60 metres is possible. Cartridge Lane is lightly used and traffic from the site would not be significant. The existing entrance gate is set back 10 metres so that vehicles towing caravans can pull in clear of the highway before the gates are opened. But all is not lost. [ 01.02.2008, 21:48: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Was that a good move or not.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Well it has happened and it can't be undone, but as I've said, all is not lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Hi McBain Seems like both of our new years resolutions have gone down the pan eh As for me, it's hard not to take an active interest in issues wether they are on my own doorstep or not. Like many people I've seen, heard and got completely fed up of too much that is happening in Warrington over the past couple of years to ignore and carry on turning a blind eye now. Addiction maybe... but realism, understanding and total disbelief of the whole 'system' has an underlying driving force Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Originally posted by Paul Kennedy: Well it has happened and it can't be undone, but as I've said, all is not lost. Sorry Paul... Your other more detailed 'explanation' posted 01-02-2008 21:35 did not appear until I went out of the topic and back in again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 'THEY' HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN CUTTING THE BLOO*Y TREES DOWN THIS MORNING...... ...the ones that were caused the highways dept to object on the grounds of visibility issue.. Reason The existing vehicular access onto Cartridge Lane does not provide adequate visibility splays, (especially to the east). The continued use of the site/access results in harm to the safe operation/use of the highway and conflicts with Policy DCS1 and DCS15 of Warrington Borough Councils Unitary Development Plan. The potential improvement to visibility splays would result in further visual harm to the openness/visual impact of the site in the Green Belt via the removal of the existing mature trees adjacent to the Cartridge Lane boundary. So Mr S has overcome one of the refusal obstacles .. just the Green Belt issue and he's sorted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Started yesterday afternoon Dismayed :redmad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 So why on earth did no-one try and stop them It all stinks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.