PLANNING chiefs at Warrington are being asked to approve proposals to preserve a pair of 19th century barns by converting them into five dwellings.
The scheme, which would also involve demolition of Hollingreave Farm, in Dam Lane, Rixton to make way for a new two-storey house, has angered local residents.
Four neighbours and Rixton-with-Glazebrook Parish Council have lodged objections.
They claim the Green Belt site is not large enough to accommodate five additional dwellings – and that the old barns are not worth preserving.
But planning officers are recommending the scheme be approved and say the parish council’s view that the buildings are not worth retention is subjective.
They believe the barns are inherently attractive and the conversion proposals will enhance them.
A spokesman said: “The proposals secure the sympathetic conversion and long term retention of a pair of aesthetically attractive buildings.”
North Cheshire Developments Ltd want to demolish the existing farmhouse and replace it with a modern, two-storey detached house.
The two 19th century barns would be converted to five one-and-a-half and two-storey dwellings – one which would be “affordable.”
In addition, four of five 20-th century agricultural buildings would be removed – as well as a double garage block.
Landscaping proposals include the creation of a native wildflower meadow, with existing hedging retained and enhanced.
But the parish council feels an extra five dwellings on the site will be over-development and that additional traffic visiting the site will cause road safety problems.
They also fear the scheme could set a precedent.
Neighbours say the development would have a damaging impact on the Green Belt and the developer would be making money at the expense of rural life.
PLANNING chiefs at Warrington are being asked to approve proposals to
preserve a pair of 19th century barns by converting them into five
dwellings.
Anger over historic barns plan
1212 Comments
Share.
About Author
Gary Skentelbery
Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.
12 Comments
There you go developer rather than farmer so it is OK. .
Quite. Didn’t take long to see how green belt only applies to the disabled rather than those who can offer something to planning officers.
By which I mean the wildflower meadow obviously.
Do meadows still come in brown envelopes?
Still alive and kicking apparently whilst cosying up to those who place great value on this green and pleasant land.
You can get these in envelopes. http://www.reallywildflowers.co.uk/department/seed_mixes
I reckon there must be a large reported planning gain for this development on green belt from the planning department. Does anybody know what value the planning officers have put on some seed mix? I know they put the Peel Hall planning gain (= council land anyway) down at a million quid, so who knows?
The latter are sometimes found in the former, if you know where to look.
Planning gain to whom? Is this some mythical yardstick which can be subjectively manipulated to give the wildflower mixers whatever answer they want?
The more inconsistency in the planning dept the sooner they’ll be forced to have a clear out perhaps? Planning officers with respect for the greenbelt and our heritage would make a pleasant change.
Here we go again! Development before heritage. When are going to get the promised clear out of the WBC Planning Dept?
Not sure I’d class 4 residents and one brief Parish Council objection as huge ‘Anger’ but that aside has anyone actually looked at the planning application? Considering it’s only for 5 new dwellings it’s absolutely huge and 253 pages long even before you read all the other correspondence. On first glance I sort of understood why they are recommending approval as the site has apparently been vacant since 2009 and is in a state of disrepair according to the structural notes. But then I scrolled down and clicked further and spotted some pictures which clearly show the huge out-buildings as being part of a very much ‘alive’ working farm which looked to be ok and were complete with lots of agricultural machinery and even huge piles of grain etc. Call me cynical but did a developer buy this lovely farm and it’s buildings in 2009 in It’s working state and then just sit on it until such a time that it fell into a state and perhaps if remedial repairs could not/were not/have not been done since 2009 then maybe new development seems the only viable option now ? Like I said with the lengths the applicant has gone to supply a very in-depth and thorough application covering just about everything (and I have only quickly scrolled through and not read every word) they are clearly very determined, knowledgeable and determined. Interesting point I noted though is that one of the council’s officers stated somehwere that…….. “conversion of rural buildings to residential use would not be inappropriate within green belt land subject to site specific considerations providing openness is not compromised”…. made me wonder if Mr Cross could perhaps convert or replace the footprint of one of his outer buildings (if he has one) into a home for his poorly wife and also what that statement means for the likes of the application on Red Lane where ‘barns’ were built and are already there but they too are now wanting to convert them into residential homes. Interesting to see if this one gets approved as I imagine there are a quite few people hoping it will be so they can use it as a test case in their own applications or appeals to higher bodies;) If what one of the objectors says is true that could also includes 3 other farm owners (not developers) near to the farm in question who have allegedly applied for similar permission in the past but ALL have been refused 😉 I think the flood gates may have just taken a knock in the open direction but could be nudged back again as after all NO decision has actually been made yet 😉
With regards to the ones at Walton Res. the owner built them with this in mind. Wait long enough for a change in planning views and hey presto, permission is granted. (Straight from the horses mouth when walking the dogs). A building (2 in this case) that only needs windows and internal work and you have several apartments.
Hasn’t it already happened????