BARNSLEY Council will continue to fight a developer behind a 250-home estate at a public inquiry - despite a host of amendments being put forward in a bid to appease the local authority’s planning board.

A meeting, held on Tuesday, saw councillors initially express their satisfaction that Bellway Homes - the developer behind the proposed estate on Lee Lane in Royston - had offered appropriate levels of contributions for secondary education provisions, sustainable transport, off-site greenspace and affordable housing.

They also noted the amended layout addressed the impact on trees and hedgerows around the site, but safety concerns remained over how the plans would affect roads around the site.

The internal layout of the development also came into question as not all transport users were ‘guaranteed with safe, secure and convenient movement around the site’.

Councillors noted that insufficient evidence was presented about how the development would affect great crested newts and other wildlife and voted to reject the amendments.

In Text Promo Image

It means their differences will now be thrashed out at a public inquiry which will begin on March 24.

Head of planning Joe Jenkinson said: “We received the application but told Bellway that the site was still subject to a masterplan, which as yet has not been formalised.

“We explained that and last summer the ball started rolling for this - the developer seemed happy with holding off until such a thing was in place.

“However, they decided against that in the end and submitted an appeal with the planning inspectorate against the non-determination of the application.

“Since the planning board’s last meeting, the applicant has submitted revised plans and additional documentation. A case management conference with the planning inspector who will be determining the inquiry on behalf of the Secretary of State was also held on February 4.

“The inspector urged the two parties to continue to narrow the areas of disagreement and required the council to prepare putative reasons for refusal.”