DCSIMG

Crackley houses are refused - by just by one vote

Image by Bloor Homes on how the site could look

Image by Bloor Homes on how the site could look

A contentious bid for 93 new homes to be built in the ‘Crackley Triangle’ has been rejected in a close vote by planners.

Warwick District Council planning committee dismissed the new housing application on Tuesday night following concern over access and suitability of the green belt site.

The proposal for land just north of Common Lane was proposed by developers Bloor Homes, who had won the support of the district’s planning officers over the scheme.

But the recommendations to pass the bid was defeated when councillors voted five votes to four against allowing the build to go ahead.

Cllr George Illingworth (Con, Abbey) addressed the committee on behalf of the town council, reminding members that a survey showed 95 per cent of residents wanted the site to remain undeveloped.

He also maintained that road access and drainage problems should be treated with “suspicion and caution” following growing concern.

The site is accessed by a single road which was deemed to be unsuitable for heavy traffic.

To get around the problems, developers proposed a potential traffic light system and to strengthen a footpath so that emergency vehicles could squeeze past cars trying to exit the site.

Some members of the planning committee felt the current “pinch point” of vehicles along Common Lane would provide an effective traffic calming measure.

But Cllr Felicity Bunker (Con, Park Hill), described the access plans as “contrived”.

“It’s a non-starter having access right by a bridge on a bend in a road that is only wide enough for one double decker bus and half a car,” she said.

“I also think the number of houses being proposed is far too many. Twelve maximum would be enough for this site.”

Members of the town ramblers’ association also objected on grounds of the damage to the landscape - a point agreed by Stoneleigh councillor Bertie MacKay.

Cllr MacKay was also concerned about the high number of homes and safety and amenity of tenants.

The application was rejected by five votes to four.

 

Comments

 
 

Back to the top of the page