BARNSLEY Council’s planning committee has been likened to watching a ‘tragedy play’ as controversial plans to build houses on a former school site were green-lit.
The former site of Foulstone School on Nanny Marr Road, Darfield has been the subject of several planning applications for mixed-use residential and retail developments, since it became vacant in 2012.
But these have fallen through due to a lack of interest from retailers, and the most recent application by Partner Construction Ltd scales back the retail element of the 1.26-hectare site from the allocation originally slated, leaving only a small area available.
Last week a row broke out in Barnsley Town Hall over the site, with councillors accused of ‘failing the community’ in granting planning permission for the development which sees 41 houses set to be built, including 35 classed as affordable housing. And the meeting has been branded ‘not fit for purpose’ by Chris Needham, resident of nearby Edderthorpe Road, who attended the meeting.
“At a site meeting, I was told by a local councillor to be at that planning meeting so I could explain the importance of that land,” said Chris.
“Darfield is not a village any more, it’s a small town with 10,000 people living in it. But there’s no community hub, nowhere for people to meet friends and neighbours and older people especially can become isolated.
“If councillors oppose an application, even it’s in their own ward, the chairman provides enough time for the planning officers to make sure that particular councillor is shown how wrong they are.
“How can a planning officer dictate to a councillor what is the right thing for the councillor’s own community?
“The decision’s been made before you’ve actually made it to the discussion. The planning department officers in effect are browbeating the people of Barnsley.”
Planning bosses disagreed, saying a ‘long debate’ had taken place about the site.
Matt Gladstone, executive director for place, said: “The board members considered each of the cases presented and had a long debate about the merits of the scheme. Ultimately they decided to grant planning permission based on the officer recommendation and the application was determined entirely in accordance with the set procedure.”
Discussions for the site have in the past named small supermarket chains and smaller retail units but a ‘loss in market demand’ caused these not to take the site on.
Mr Gladstone said: “Regrettably, the retailers did not take the site on due to a loss in market demand. This led to the bulk of the site being reconsidered as a residential scheme but with part of the site being retained for a future retail development scheme.”
