Wath caravan site plans rejected
Plans were first submitted around a year ago by the owners of The Pocket Bar and Snooker Club on Wet Moor Lane, Wath, to demolish the building and use the site to house up to six residential mobile homes for the over 50s.
Planning officers rejected the application in April and the owners appealed the decision.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdLast Friday, the appeal by Bramley-based UC Holdings Ltd was rejected by the Planning Inspectorate, Thomas Hatfield, on the basis the development would “significantly harm the character and appearance of the area”.
Mr Hatfield said the six single-storey caravans “would contrast sharply with the layout of the surrounding properties” and “would be at odds with the traditional two-storey character of the area.”
He added: “The development would also be compact and there would be no private or communal amenity space.
“This would result in a cramped form of development.”
He concluded the development “would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to development plan policies”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdMore than 130 people signed a petition against the plans last year, with many objecting to the increased traffic and the fact a well-used footpath through from Manvers estates to Wath C of E School would be forced to close.
Other residents bemoaned the loss of the snooker club as a well-established community asset.
The three ward councillors for the area were also against the plans.
Cllr David Roche said residents were “delighted” with the news.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad“One resident said she had cried tears of happiness at the news when she realised it was not being passed,” said Cllr Roche.
A public meeting was held around six months ago by the developer which around 20 people attended, said Cllr Roche.
“There was not a single resident there in favour of it, they were all very angry about it and wanted us to do what we could to stop it,” he said.
“It was a heated meeting, but not against the council, against the company.”