A large but very sweet and delicious slice of humble pie was served up to yours truly at last night's planning meeting where proposals to build 20 two bedroom flats on Back Lambgates, the current site of a single bungalow (see picure above) were discussed.In yesterdays post I was very downbeat about the prospects of the Development and Control Committee overturning Adrian Fisher's recommendation to give plans the green light. The prognosis was based on previous high profile cases of major developments in the area, most notably S.C.C. and the Rossington sheds, which had zero local support, indeed massive opposition but were rubber stamped by the Committee regardless.
What was particularly pleasing is that not only was it defeated but it was rejected unanimously, a decision which dovetailed neatly with the outcome of our own vote to object at this month's meeting. So what were the factors involved in this massive defeat inflicted on Adrian Fisher and his planning cohorts who supported the application and recommended its approval?
Without doubt the efforts of Jo Osborn and other local residents who objected in strength and further raised the profile of the campaign through numerous letters to the Press, was a significant, probably the most significant factor. It highlighted the fact that this ought not to be a simple straight forward rubber stamping job and that there were lots issues surrounding the case. Many of these were detailed in our own letter of objection, which can be read in the previous blog here but suffice to say that it gave the Committee food for thought and plenty of grounds on which to hang their concerns.
The other important ingredient was a hired brief in the name on Andrew Moorhouse who made good use of his three minutes to summarise the detailed objections. He noted that the plans flouted no less than three policies of the local plan and that the density of the flats worked out at a huge 160 dwellings per hectare, meaning that levels of amenity would be very low and asked why these residents should have less amenity than anyone else?
He also made the point well, which though obvious needed to be said, that the proposed structure had no local distinctiveness and showed no sympathy to the area. Indeed the whole question of design and sensitivity had been brutally ignored. In essence this was an urban structure in a semi-rural setting, inappropriate and out of character - echoes of Rossington Park - a point that Cllr. Kay went on to make, stating that it would be a scar on the landscape.
The area is actually within the boundary of Cllr. Kay's constituency and he was first to speak in the ensuing debate. During his comments it emerged that Committee members had earlier been on a perilous site visit which entailed a minibus journey along Back Lambgates. It revealed to them the truth that this was indeed a track and not a road, illustrating not only the poor vehicular access but also that it was well used by pedestrians.
He made further incisive points, particularly with regard to the alleged need for these type of affordable homes, noting that there were similar existing properties, currently unoccupied because local people want houses not flats. Also that there were two mills in Glossop full of available flats! After asserting the fact that there is a shortage of public space in Hadfield and that the loss of parkland would reduce that still further, he put forward a motion to reject the application.
A worried look came over Fisher's face and he visibly blanched. He was right to. For Chris Pearson (Chinley) picked up on the loss of amenity and open spaces, suggesting that any problems of anti-social behaviour should be dealt with in a positive way rather than simply taking away green spaces.
Whilst he thought it was the right kind of development, he shared the opinion that it was in the wrong place, speaking about fire hazards with regard to getting emergency vehicles down the unadopted track, along with a lack of parking for tradesmen and visitors. He added that the money would be better spent on brownfield sites and went on to second Cllr. Kay's motion to reject the application.
From this point onwards Fisher started to hedge his bets and was quickly back peddling. As Cllr. after Cllr. started to wade in with different reasons to overthrow the application...overbearing development, traffic safety, safe route to school, inadequate parking, should not fulfill quotas at any cost..etc he conceded that were some good grounds on which refusal could be hung.
Local Cllrs. Cynthia Mitchell and Bob Mc Keown also chipped in to good effect and by the end of the debate it was a question of, on which grounds to quash the application, rather than any doubt as to the outcome of the vote. In the end there were unanimous votes to turn it down due it being an overbearing development and an unacceptable loss of amenity.
Chris Pearson wanted to go further and add inadequate access but there was a fear that doing so might aid any appeal from Johnny Johnson who are now as popular as Dr Shipman in these parts.
In summary, an excellent, if unexpected outcome. The flannel of Fisher and the seeming inability to question or overrule anything that comes with his recommendation, has finally been overcome.
Hopefully the DCC committee have found their feet and their confidence. Let's hope this is the first defeat of many for Fisher and his ridiculous recommendations. That is the only thing that will stop the Planning Dept. supporting everything that comes their way regardless of its suitability for the area or local sensitivity.
