Whilst this may not sound like the most objectionable planning application you've ever heard of, the committee agreed it would have ruined a large tract of unspoilt rural and agriculture land comprising part of the Tees Heritage Park.
A number of other concerns were voiced by committee members - far too many in fact to list here - but chief amongst these was regarding the proposed footbridge over the Tees (which was to be sited just metres away from homes on Minerva Mews, and would have resulted in an unacceptable invasion of privacy for residents there).
What is arguably of more significance from Yarm residents' point of view is the impact today's decision will have on the application to build 735 homes on Green Lane, which is (at least for the moment) due to be heard by the planning committee on 5th February 2013.
Today's application was merely an enabling development to afford Yarm School scope to sell the site of its current playing fields at Green Lane (pictured above) to Bellway Homes, the latest profiteers hoping to bank a greenfield site with planning permission in Yarm, to cash in on whenever the housing market improves.
Whether the Green Lane application will now be heard by the committee next week remains to be seen, but don't be surprised if the application is withdrawn between now and then.
Although today's decision is undoubtedly good news for the overwhelming majority of residents across the whole borough, I can't help but feel a twinge of sadness.
Whilst it is always disappointing to see landowners and housebuilders looking to profit from Yarm, and Stockton Borough Council's idiotic belief that the borough needs thousands more homes (more on that another time), it can hardly be considered a surprise.
However, when a private school looks to ruin a swathe of a heritage park in order to facilitate the building of hundres of new homes, in the face of overwhelming public opinion, I do feel a pang of sadness and, perhaps naively, surprise.
Anybody living in Yarm will be familiar with the problems Yarm School brings, particularly if you have ever had to try and drive down The Spital whilst parents are parked inconsiderately, dangerously, and as near to the school gates as they can get. Or if you have tried to park anywhere on West Street just to find every space occupied by a sixth-former's car.
It is easy to understand some of the anger that a large number of residents from Yarm and Eaglesliffe have directed at the school as a result of this planning application, branding the application as "selfish and unnecessary". Whilst you would expect any school to try do the best it can for its pupils, staff and the school itself, when those aspirations repeatedly clash with those of the local community it's perhaps time the school had a good, long look at itself.
[Final paragraph amended 21/01/2013]
5 comments:
It is very unusual that you seem to be wishing away a significant employer from this area.
It is also clear that you did not read the proposed development plan, or have chosen to ignore it, as it was clear that the local area would have gained several new facilities including access to land that is currently privately owned.
I also find it odd that the well being of nearly one thousand local children does not register with you as a benefit to our community.
Furthermore, you are wrong when you state that the motives for the application were financial. Please provide the figures that you believe support that claim, or retract it.
As for parking on West St. I should be interested to hear why you consider that the young adults you refer to have any less right to park in such spaces than anyone else.
Your own words "self centred" and "arrogant" seem to apply quite nicely to your post.
all we have to do now is stop green lane and get morley carr over turned,once this is done we can claim our high st and thirsk road back from yarm school
long live state schools
What a muppet! Who votes for this idiot?
Misinformed twaddle.
Whilst I ordinarily won't respond to comments from people hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, A Local raises some points that merit answers.
Firstly, whilst I have amended my blog to remove the suggestion that Yarm would be best served by Yarm School moving to another part of the borough, to suggest this is 'wishing away a significant employer' is misrepresenting what was said. Unless you're really suggesting that staff at Yarm School would refuse to commute to a site elsewhere in the borough?
Of course the "well being of nearly one thousand local children" is of paramount importance, I suspect your use of the word local would not stand up to scrutiny. I'd be interested to know what percentage of those children actually live in Yarm?
In addition, the planning application may have been more acceptable to the planning committee had the school being prepared to make some provision for community usage of the facilities (something they refused to allow) - you might wish to read the FA's criticism on pages 32/3 of the report at http://www.egenda.stockton.gov.uk/aksstockton/images/att19152.doc
I have been happy to withdraw the suggestion that the school's motives were purely financial.
As for students parking on West Street, I raise this point as it is a long standing concern of residents that the school has pledged to address on a number of occasions. We can all see the result of those pledges...
Finally, I am happy to accept that I am self-centred in so far as I strive to do the best for the town and its residents, not just for the benefit of a privileged few. Assuming you define arrogant as having the courage to put my name to my comments, then I must agree with that too.
Post a Comment