Can this be allowed for building on Green Barrier / Belt ?
-
Posts
-
Brymbo Developments Ltd have submitted this document ( text below ) for consideration alongside their original planning application AFTER the public comments deadline. Surely this important information should of been made public from the initial submission.
I think it’s important, because this ‘loophole’ could be used in ANY planning application.
Maybe, next time, it maybe on your doorstep.
I wonder how many, if any, exceptional cases there have been in the past ?
BRYMBO: RECLAMATION AND REDEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (OUTLINE): P/2012/0817
LPG 27: Developer Contributions to Schools
Local Planning Guidance Note 27 sets out the Council’s position with regard to Developer Contributions to Education Facilities.
The Guidance relates to proposed developments of four or more residential units, which would be the case here, and where it is deemed that there is a shortage of places in local schools.
It is considered that this proposal should be considered as an exceptional case and that the normal requirements should be set aside for the following reasons:
The Housing Development is proposed as an ‘enabling’ development – whatever its merits in its own right, it is proposed specifically as a means of generating the necessary funds to complete construction of the Spine Road (an integral part of the overall Brymbo Steelworks Reclamation and Redevelopment Scheme for which all parties, including the Local Authority, acknowledge funding has never been available)
The development of the site will secure funding (at no cost to the public purse) to allow for the following;Long-term access arrangements to be provided to the proposed employment developments for all local communities;
Provision of access to the Heritage Area;
Improved inter-community linkages between Brymbo and Tanyfron and Brymbo and Wrexham;
Access for all local communities to all local facilities – shop, Enterprise Centre, and importantly in this context, the proposed school site.
It is clear that without completion of the Spine Road the full community benefits of the whole reclamation scheme will not be realised. Failure to do so will have far-reaching and detrimental impacts, preventing the full implementation of a major 10 year reclamation project.An enabling development is one that might not normally be granted planning permission, but in exceptional cases, where wider community benefits will be brought about, either directly or indirectly as a result of the development, permission may be granted. Where a proposal for such development is put forward, it is therefore necessary to consider whether benefits to the local community can justify normal planning policy considerations to be set aside.
If the normal Developer Contributions to education Facilities requirements were imposed upon this scheme, the costs would reduce the funds which would be generated to secure the completion of the Spine Road, which could in turn endanger the scheme altogether or could mean that further land would need to be released.
Following the initial resolution to approve this housing development (P/2005/1486 – 6th July 2006), extensive reclamation operations have been undertaken at a cost of £507,000 – a significant sum already expended, which must be taken into account when considering the overall viability of the scheme.It is also the case that as part of an earlier planning permission for housing development (now some 80% completed) there was a requirement for land to be made available for a school. The initial requirement (P/2002/1171 – April 2003) was for 1.2 hectares of land for this purpose, later amended to 1.5 hectares (P/2004/1153 – November 2004). In the event BDL has made available 1.8 hectares of land, fully remediated and available for immediate development, at no cost to the public purse. Notwithstanding the construction and occupation of over 400 properties since 2005, the site remains undeveloped. The value of that land far exceeds what might be regarded as a reasonable contribution to education facilities.
It is considered therefore that in order to allow the development to fulfil its enabling role and in light of the provision of a significant area of land already for this purpose, this should be regarded as an exceptional case where the requirements for developer contributions are set aside.For more background information, Google ‘tanyfron planning’.
And yes, I do have an interest in this particular case.
Why wasn’t this all sorted out before the initial planning permission was agreed? How do we know that the developers will keep their promises with regards to the spine road & or the school?
When you put in context how many attempts they’ve had at trying to get this planning permission through, it’s could be construed as a form of blackmail !
Previously, they’ve promised actions before, but never materialized.So far they’ve tried to use the excuse of Brown field land ( incorrectly) and WCBC housing needs to try and get this through.
Last time, 2011, an inspector acting for the Welsh Assembly refused planning due to the main fact of it was building on green barrier land , plus several others.
We have a similar situation where the council have sent me the greenbelt area map and when i reported work being done on greenbelt lan, the boundary had been moved.
This is now in the hands of the mp to see where we go from here as i always thought councils couldn’t move boundaries unless it went through parliament.Our MP and AM have been contacted, no progress yet as its still with the WCBC Planning dept.
I’ll keep you posted on any MP, AM intervention.has this been caused (in part) by the withdrawal of the council’s LDP??
what did the original LDP say about the area?
As mr mullinder’s brymbo developments limited has just filed their accounts what do they reveal and what is mullinder’s previous record with other councils throughout GB?
is there scope for wrexham.com to interview mullinder??
To answer what I can.
The LDP ( local development plan) , or the lack off, has a massive part to play. Effectively, there is no clear plan in place. The WCBC and the Welsh Assembly are still negotiating a way forward. But at the moment, very little to nil guidelines.Regarding their accounts. Plaid Cymru have quoted that when the BDL submitted the books for 2005 -2006 (when the spine road should of been built !), dividends of approx £15 million was paid out to the handful of BDL shareholders.
The Wrexham.com interview ? I would love to see this happen and hopefully try and get some justification of why they have selected this 1 site on green barrier land, whilst the BDL have ignored 5 other sites within the reclaimed site (brown field) that would serve exactly the same purpose.
@Sam 3256 wrote:
To answer what I can.
The LDP ( local development plan) , or the lack off, has a massive part to play. Effectively, there is no clear plan in place. The WCBC and the Welsh Assembly are still negotiating a way forward. But at the moment, very little to nil guidelines.Regarding their accounts. Plaid Cymru have quoted that when the BDL submitted the books for 2005 -2006 (when the spine road should of been built !), dividends of approx £15 million was paid out to the handful of BDL shareholders.
The Wrexham.com interview ? I would love to see this happen and hopefully try and get some justification of why they have selected this 1 site on green barrier land, whilst the BDL have ignored 5 other sites within the reclaimed site (brown field) that would serve exactly the same purpose.
If that is true about the dividends, why didn’t lucas at the time when he at the dept of trade & industry order an investigation??
BDL is just one of a number of companies that people like mullinder have an interest in. It would be interesting to see what else these individuals have done in GB in order to see if they are fat cats.
At the moment it seems BDL is just a faceless company, but the shareholders past and present should personally go public to defend their record.
It would also be an interest to see which people at council’s planning department and planning committee were responsible for decisions and see if these tally up with eagles meadow, wrexham village, cefn mawr tescos and morrisons.
I have asked a councillor who supports the development about the dividend payday, he replied ” it was a business decision !” ( in no uncertain terms).
Eagles meadow, Wrexham village, cefn mawr tescos and Morrisons. Now that’s an interesting take on it. Hopefully our green barrier isn’t going to be added to the list of the above ‘questionable developments’.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
