A BATTLE between Barnsley Council and a housing developer over driveways looks set to intensify after planning officers recommended refusal of a further 97 houses which last month had been recommended for approval.
Driveways laid at new Gleeson Homes properties on sites across Barnsley are made of gravel, contrary to Barnsley Council’s insistence they should be a solid-bound material.
Last month the council recommended approval of the developer’s latest plans for its third phase of an estate off Lowfield Road, Bolton upon Dearne, albeit with a condition the driveways must be properly surfaced. The council says gravel can spill onto the highway, and it allows unsightly weeds to grow.
Five separate appeals have been held, with the council winning all of them and enforcement action is now underway to try and force Gleeson to re-lay the drives at homes it has already built on other sites.
But when the latest application went to a vote of councillors on the planning board last month, instead of going with officers’ recommendations to approve, councillors instead voted to defer making a decision. This was to explore whether a condition could be imposed that the first two phases of the development had to be complete and up to specification before phase three goes ahead.
The application is due to go before councillors again on Tuesday, and a planning officers’ report seen by the Chronicle recommends they refuse the application.
Part of their reasoning related to a quote in an article in the Chronicle last month in which a Gleeson spokesman said it was ‘a shame that a totally inappropriate planning condition will be imposed’, and that ‘the council know that we will challenge the condition and go to appeal again which will be a disastrous waste of council tax payers’ money’.
The planning officers’ report this week says: “In the past the council has sought to control this matter through a condition with this application reported to the planning regulatory board in May with a recommendation for approval on this basis.
“However after the agenda was published the applicant issued a press release on May 18 which stated a clear intention to challenge the condition post decision despite the failed appeal decisions on the previous five appeal cases.
“Therefore the past behaviour of the applicant is relevant to the extent that there are unresolved enforcement issues with phase two that have an effect on this development i.e. the loose aggregate driveways and the non provision of the equipped children’s play area.
“Officers have sought to enter into further discussions with the applicant to speak about ways forward. However the applicant is not willing to attend a meeting at the council’s offices, nor on site and no response has been received to the correspondence that has listed the breaches of conditions on other sites.
“As such it would appear there is no prospect of reaching an agreement about a suitable condition. In the circumstances therefore it is considered that the use of a condition is insufficient to mitigate the adverse effects of the development proposed.”
This week a Gleeson Homes spokesman declined to comment.
