News RSS Feed


D-day for travellers’site

7:30am Monday 5th January 2009

comment Comments (2)   Have your say »


COUNCILLORS will this week decide the future of a planning application that could see a travellers’ site in Orford.

The application, for land at Brook House, Sandy Lane West, is earmarked for approval by council planning officials.

But residents living near to the site have presented the council with two petitions totalling 123 signatures, and 76 letters of objection.

Borough councillors Kate Hannon, Mike Hannon, John Kerr-Brown, Brian Maher and Steve Roberts have also objected to the proposals.

Their colleagues on the development control committee will decide on the application at a meeting on Wednesday night.

The concerns of residents and councillors have been rebutted by council officers, who say there is no evidence that the proposal would increase crime, traffic or drainage problems.

The visual impact, they say, is considered to be minimal and the meeting agenda states that the “loss of property value is not a planning consideration”.

Councils are expected to give substantial weight to unmet need when it comes to gipsy caravan sites, the document says.

Therefore, councillors should at least agree temporary planning permission.

Consultations with the aboricultural officer, the highways department, Environmental Health, United Utilities and planning policy produced no objections.

The meeting, at the town hall, will begin at 6.30pm and is open to the public.


Your Say YourThis Is Cheshire

mac, woolston says...
11:01pm Mon 5 Jan 09

If loss of property value is not a planning consideration, why is it used as an argument to reject applications in the south? If the site in walton is anything to go by the visual impact will be substantial. No evidence there will be an increase in crime or traffic? The clue is in the words "travellers camp" by definition they travel!Therefore, increased traffic. Usually when evicted from illegal sites they leave a hell of a mess and allegedly do not bother with such trivialities as tax, insurance etc. That constitutes littering and various motoring offences that would leave the average (tax paying) resident in deep sh*t. Oh, and please define "temporary"?!

mac, woolston says...
9:01pm Tue 6 Jan 09

For examples of applications refused in Lymm, the guardian archives has items from sept last year. One was concerning a play area, under a heading of environmental vandalism cllr Woodyatt said the plan would " destroy a beautiful corner of the estate", The same sort of argument was used to prevent some take aways opening in Lymm. Apparently, loss of property value does count, sometimes.

Comments are closed on this article.

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »