Davenham gipsy site given go-ahead on appeal (From Northwich Guardian)
Send us news, start your message Cheshire News and your send photos and videos to 80360
Davenham gipsy site given go-ahead on appeal
10:00am Sunday 17th March 2013 in News
By Gina Bebbington
A GIPSY site planned for Davenham has been given the go-ahead after an appeal.
This is in spite of the proposals being turned down by Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWAC) officers before even reaching planning committee.
The proposal is to change the use of the land, at the junction of the A533 Davenham bypass and London Road, to a residential caravan site for two traveller families with four caravans, including two static mobile homes.
Plans were rejected by CWAC’s planning department in December 2011, after residents sent in hundreds of letters, comments and emails of objection.
The application was turned down on a number of grounds, including harm to the character of the open countryside and concerns about the proposed access, with limited visibility on a national speed limit road and in close proximity to Peckmill Roundabout, on the A533.
But, following a hearing in November, a report from planning inspector Jean Russell states: “The proposed development is acceptable in principle.
“Subject to conditions, it would not cause unacceptable harm to the Ancient Woodland, protected species or adjacent Site of Biological Importance; to the character and appearance of the area; or in respect of highway safety.
“It would be a sustainable traveller site.
“There is a general need for gipsy sites in Cheshire West and Chester; there are no alternative sites; and there is no adopted development plan policy to bring private gipsy sites forward or maintain a five year supply.”
Clr Elton Watson, ward councillor for Davenham and Moulton, said: “We supported the council’s planning officers’ decision to refuse planning permission and I still beleive it was the right decison and the inspector has made the wrong decision with the appeal.
“I have asked that the councils lawyers look at this decision to see if we have grounds to challenge it.”
Comments(15)
UsernameAlreadyInUse
says...
7:12pm Sun 17 Mar 13
There is nothing the council can do about it. There are national guidelines, and Councillors can only reject applications that go outside these guidelines. If they reject for other reasons, including NIMBYism, then their decision will simply be overturned on appeal, which wastes more taxpayer's money.
The problem isn't the Councillors, it's the agencies that produce the reports the Councillors have to rely on, and the civil servants in charge of the whole process. From the planning appeals I've been involved in, if the people producing the highways reports, and the environmental reports had actually listened to the concerns of the residents, rather than blithely relying on computer models built around incorrect assumptions, then maybe our elected Councillors would stand a cat in hell's chance of successfully rejecting the various tinpot schemes being proposed county-wide at present.
rogers-t
says...
8:38pm Sun 17 Mar 13
Continual deployment of traveler sites, the incinerator, a town centre in both towns which are becoming more and more run-down - Northwich and Winsford really are becoming a right ole dump!
L Byrne
says...
9:41pm Sun 17 Mar 13
The arrogant first sentence in your comment and the pathetic way that you defend the incompetence and cowardice of councillors is very revealing.
If the role of councillor is as pointless as you make out between whinges, I suggest that you resign and make room for some other person who might be able, or would at least try, to make a difference.
There is a clue in your second paragraph in the word 'guidelines'. That means that there is room for interpretation which can be exploited by ingenuity and commitment. History shows that where elected councillors and officers work hard together in the interests of their local residents they can achieve positive results and actually earn the handsome allowances and salaries that they get paid.
Contrary to what you say, the problem IS the councillors or at least many of them. In my direct experience with the Northwich incinerator, the councillors on the planning committee and the council officers involved did have valid reasons for opposing it on traffic/highways grounds but decided not to do so and, as a direct result, we could have a toxic monster squatting alongside the town centre for thirty years. The point being they had a choice.
(My apologies in advance to those who may think I am highjacking this topic.I'm not)
My advice to those readers who have strong feelings on the issue of the proposed travellers' site is not to take any notice of your implied advice to give up because protest would pointless. For too long, the powers that be in Chester and elsewhere have relied on the apathy of people in this area to dump on us and it is time that they got the message that those days have gone.
rogers-t
says...
10:30pm Sun 17 Mar 13
AntiNimby
says...
11:47pm Sun 17 Mar 13
Well done CWAC! What next?
stardusziggy
says...
11:35am Mon 18 Mar 13
Mcintosh
says...
5:02pm Wed 20 Mar 13
There is a big difference between a handful of gypsy families and an incinerator pumping out harmful toxins and increasing the number of HGVs on the roads.
AntiNimby
says...
9:49pm Wed 20 Mar 13
http://www.middlewic
hguardian.co.uk/news
/9518741.Booth_Lane_
under_police_guard_a
s_Middlewich_gipsy_g
ang_rumours_rife/
Not to mention a couple of years ago my neighbour was threatened with firebombing by gypsies when he objected to them pitching on his land and stealing from his yard. They even went as far as cutting their water off ready to burn him down.
Davenham Resident
says...
9:55am Thu 21 Mar 13
PS. I also think that people with caravans and large white commercial vans up their drives are also unsightly!
Mcintosh
says...
2:55pm Thu 21 Mar 13
rogers-t
says...
3:17pm Thu 21 Mar 13
Ask the privileged few on the board at Cheshire West in Chester, they want none of such sites around their areas. Also, why not ask Cheshire West to build a traveller site at the old nursery waste-land in the affluent Vicor's Cross area. Think you'll find the residents there would have none of it!
UsernameAlreadyInUse
says...
4:18pm Thu 21 Mar 13
No, I am not an elected councillor.
No, I do not work for the council.
I am a resident who has previously objected to a planning decision, succeeded in getting the Councillors to reject the application - as per the wishes of the people they represent, then watched on, horrified, as the appeals process (which doesn't involve any directly elected representatives) rode roughshod over the Councillors' decision.
Tell me, what the hell is the point of the Councillors voting on this stuff in the first place?
I would be intrigued to see how many times, where the civil servants have recommended approval of an application, and the Councillors have blocked it, that planning permission is subsequently granted on appeal. I suspect this happens in nearly 100% of cases, in which case the Councillors are merely rubber-stamping the civil servants' decisions.
Now, if the Councillors can impart more influence on the civil servants to interpret the guidelines in a particular way, then fine - but I doubt they feel they have the power to do that as the civil servants are supposed to be impartial.
Civil servants screw this country up, from a national level down to a local level, regardless of which puppets get elected.
rogers-t
says...
5:15pm Thu 21 Mar 13
,
Listen here buddy! You may indeed have a point about the culture of civil servants in public office, HOWEVER I have personally witnessed councillors in Winsford alone supporting traveller site proposals against the wishes of the people that they represent.
Cllr Mike Jones is another one of them!
You conveniently try to make out all councillors are innocent in this process, which is complete boulderdash!
UsernameAlreadyInUse
says...
5:13pm Sun 24 Mar 13
They also have to think of the bigger picture - there will be an obligation on the Council to provide sites for travellers. Maybe this site is the best of a bad bunch? Let's face it, nobody wants them near their land, but someone's going to get them - NIMBYism can't overrule national mandates.
If you've got a better idea, properly engage with the bloody Councillors, rather than bleating on about it on newspaper forums - then you might understand the rationale behind the thinking and decision-making processes, rather than taking a small-world narrow-minded view along the lines of "I don't want them near me".
rogers-t says...
1:09pm Sun 17 Mar 13
Still the 'shepple' still vote for the same old parties/councilors around here!