‘Development is a new village’
150 homes planned for green fields owned by councillor
PLANS which could see more than 150 houses built on green fields and extend the town of Leek towards Thorncliffe have gone to government planning inspectors on appeal.
Now fears have been raised that the large development would result in a new village rather than an extension to Leek if approved.
Late last year members of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council’s planning applications committee unanimously voted to refuse permission for the proposed development on land off Thorncliffe Road, Leek.
The land is presently owned by Leek district and town councillor Brian Johnson.
A total of 177 letters of objection were received from individuals and agents regarding the application.
Now planning consultants have appealed against the Moorlands council’s decision to government planning inspectors.
Issues raised at the initial planning application included the site is greenfield; will result in sprawl; should be using brownfield land; roads are not suitable for additional traffic from the development; this is a gateway to the Peak District National Park and the development will have an adverse impact on wildlife and natural flora.
Ward councillor Darren Price said: “I must confess that I was very surprised to hear that the original planning decision had been appealed given the very strong grounds for the refusal and the strength of the local opposition.
“I met with a group of local residents just this week to listen to their concerns which are the same as those raised to the initial planning application as nothing has changed!
“Development on this site is clearly contrary to many existing policies in the Core Strategy and it is not included as a housing site in the emerging Local Plan for very good reasons. Primarily, it is located in an area of high landscape sensitivity, bordering the Peak District and is completely
separate from the current perimeter of the town, surrounded by open space on each side making it effectively a new village rather than an extension to Leek.
“In addition to this, it is certainly not a sustainable site for housing with no public transport, poor pedestrian links and poor connections to the existing services in Leek. Aside from these fundamental points relating to the location of the site and its suitability for housing there remain significant concerns over flooding which is a significant problem in the area.
“This site is clearly unsuitable for housing for many reasons and this highly speculative appeal should be rejected for what it is, an opportunistic attempt to overturn a decision before the adoption of the Local Plan finally (and rightly) slams the door shut on housing development in this location.”
Leek county and district councillor Charlotte Atkins, who spoke against the last planning application, said: “Councillor Johnson’s proposed development would be a blot on a beautiful and sensitive landscape bordering the Peak District National Park.
“It would create serious traffic, safety and flooding problems.
“It was rejected unanimously by the planning committee as well as provoking fury among local residents.
“The development has no redeeming features.
“Any responsible developer would think again and recognise that they had got it totally wrong.
“For a local councillor to pursue such an appeal in the area he represents demonstrates that the concerns of his local constituents come far behind his own financial interests.”
Speaking to the planning committee last year on behalf of local residents,
Mike Sutcliffe said: “The case for refusal is clear and straightforward.
“Landscape studies have identified this area as being high status and valued. The location, large scale and suburban estate character of the proposals are a threat to the landscape.
“This is a gateway site and development would damage the setting of Leek and adversely affect the wider setting of the Peak Park.
“It would also damage current opportunities for informal rural recreation in this area.”
The Post & Times spoke to Councillor Johnson about the development, but he declined to make a comment.