Kidderminster residents to appeal as controversial plan approved

Kidderminster Shuttle: Kidderminster residents to appeal as controversial plan approved Kidderminster residents to appeal as controversial plan approved

RESIDENTS living next to a Kidderminster site which will have 31 homes built on it are planning to appeal against the decision which gave plans the go-ahead.

Conservative councillor Stephen Williams cast the deciding vote for approval as members of Wyre Forest District Council’s planning committee were torn – at eight votes each – on whether or not to grant permission for UK Construction and Wyre Forest Community Housing to build the affordable homes at the Harriers Industrial Estate, Stadium Close.

Planners confirmed a mistake had been made in the original report, which said the site would have dedicated visitor parking spaces.

It was confirmed at Tuesday’s meeting that would not be the case, sparking fears more motor - ists would park on surrounding streets.

After the meeting, Ray Mercer Way resident Lucie Davis said the visitor parking mistake meant neighbours had not been consulted on the correct plans and would appeal against the decision.

The application was given delegated approval subject to planning conditions and a £6,200 open space contribution being met.

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:12pm Mon 17 Feb 14

silverfox1953 says...

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS.THE PARKING AROUND AGGBOROUGH STADIUM IS ALREADY LIMITED AND BUILDING HOUSES ON A SITE NEAR TO THE GROUND WITH NO PARKING SPACES WILL ONLY CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS.I AM NOT AGAINST EXTRA AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEING BUILT BUT SURELY THERE ARE OTHER SITES WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED LIKE THE THE AREA OPPOSITE THE COUNCIL HQ WHICH SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN LEFT DERELICT FOR TOO LONG.
ROB LLOYD
CHESSHIRE AVENUE
STOURPORT
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS.THE PARKING AROUND AGGBOROUGH STADIUM IS ALREADY LIMITED AND BUILDING HOUSES ON A SITE NEAR TO THE GROUND WITH NO PARKING SPACES WILL ONLY CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS.I AM NOT AGAINST EXTRA AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEING BUILT BUT SURELY THERE ARE OTHER SITES WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED LIKE THE THE AREA OPPOSITE THE COUNCIL HQ WHICH SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN LEFT DERELICT FOR TOO LONG. ROB LLOYD CHESSHIRE AVENUE STOURPORT silverfox1953

4:08pm Mon 17 Feb 14

DOEPUBLIC says...

How can politicians justify approving plans with such blatant mistakes?
Confirms the cynics perception that property developers and politicians are cutting corners for vested interests, escaping appropriate scrutiny in public interests. Playing Monopoly with our community.
How can politicians justify approving plans with such blatant mistakes? Confirms the cynics perception that property developers and politicians are cutting corners for vested interests, escaping appropriate scrutiny in public interests. Playing Monopoly with our community. DOEPUBLIC

4:21pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Lettzz says...

So a planning application that reduces parking in a totally residential area gets passed ??

We already have insufficient parking spaces allocated to newly built homes, where is the logic that a two bedroomed house / flat only needs parking for one car ??

Why is is becoming the norm for Children, Adults, Elderly, Wheel Chair Users, Buggy / Pram / Push Chair users to have to walk on the road because people who generally have more than one car per household or have people visiting by car are parking on the pavement and making them impassable ??

Why do we think that this is acceptable ??

In the case of the Ray Mercer Way / Stadium Close planning meeting, one person on the deciding panel asked to visit Ray Mercer Way prior to making his decision, this was voted against by other people around that table !! Why are people who have not visited so do not understand the issues and implications making the decisions ?? Surely to make a decision you have to have the full facts and understand the issues that are presented for any against votes but if you have not been then how can you ?? And more importantly why are you included in a panel that makes such decisions..??
So a planning application that reduces parking in a totally residential area gets passed ?? We already have insufficient parking spaces allocated to newly built homes, where is the logic that a two bedroomed house / flat only needs parking for one car ?? Why is is becoming the norm for Children, Adults, Elderly, Wheel Chair Users, Buggy / Pram / Push Chair users to have to walk on the road because people who generally have more than one car per household or have people visiting by car are parking on the pavement and making them impassable ?? Why do we think that this is acceptable ?? In the case of the Ray Mercer Way / Stadium Close planning meeting, one person on the deciding panel asked to visit Ray Mercer Way prior to making his decision, this was voted against by other people around that table !! Why are people who have not visited so do not understand the issues and implications making the decisions ?? Surely to make a decision you have to have the full facts and understand the issues that are presented for any against votes but if you have not been then how can you ?? And more importantly why are you included in a panel that makes such decisions..?? Lettzz

4:39pm Fri 21 Feb 14

ClaireS2014 says...

Utter madness, no consideration for those that live there now who already have parking issues which will only get worse with inadequate provision in the plans for the development.

The plans that were approved were inaccurate as they had the provision of 3 additional Disabled parking spaces and it was confirmed at the meeting that the plans were incorrect as these were now not included so how does planning get passes when the plans under review are incorrect ? Surely new plans should be produced and reviewed as part of the decision making process ? Does this not mean that the decision should not stand ?

Come on those on the Planning Committee your decisions have an effect on people you should surely have all the correct facts to hand before making a decision on applications that affect others ?

Why were these plans approved ? When they were incorrect ?!?
Utter madness, no consideration for those that live there now who already have parking issues which will only get worse with inadequate provision in the plans for the development. The plans that were approved were inaccurate as they had the provision of 3 additional Disabled parking spaces and it was confirmed at the meeting that the plans were incorrect as these were now not included so how does planning get passes when the plans under review are incorrect ? Surely new plans should be produced and reviewed as part of the decision making process ? Does this not mean that the decision should not stand ? Come on those on the Planning Committee your decisions have an effect on people you should surely have all the correct facts to hand before making a decision on applications that affect others ? Why were these plans approved ? When they were incorrect ?!? ClaireS2014

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree