Problems to come with revamped town centre, says resident

Doug Swindells first raised his concerns about the proposals to revamp the civic hall and library site in Swinton when RMBC consulted on the scheme.

But he said the application approved by the council’s planning board last month had failed to address his concerns and was storing up problems for the future.

RMBC approved the regeneration of the town centre with 49 new homes, a revamped civic hall, new library and a children’s play area.

The homes will be built on Charnwood Street and cut off a piece of land which is already “taken over” by Japanese knotweed.

Mr Swindells, who has a property on Queen Street, said the development would take away the only access to the waste ground site — and fears his own driveway might be in line to be used as access instead.

Mr Swindells said: “What I don’t want is they develop the 49 new homes, spend all that money and leave this dumping site here for everybody to look at.

“The fella who owns this land wants access through my drive and thinks the council is sympathetic to him.

“At the moment there’s a good route in off Charnwood Street, which gives him accessibility.”

Mr Swindells added: “On my deeds, it says I must give access on this drive, although it’s mine, to the tenants of 98 and 100 Queen Street.

“The guy who bought this land thinks he’s got access — but he hasn’t.”

Mr Swindells said somebody had already knocked his fence down once to gain access to the land.

He added: “You can’t spend £10 million on the development when on the side of it you have Japanese knotweed.

“I’ve spoken to the council but all they’ve told me is it was private land they can’t do anything about it.

“But they can. They can do a compulsory purchase.”

Rotherham Council’s assistant director for planning, regeneration and transport, Simon Moss, said: “We are pleased that the development in Swinton town centre is progressing and was granted planning permission in July.

“Mr Swindells’ proposals were examined and the small area of land at the rear of his property was considered unsuitable for inclusion in the development.”

RMBC insisted access issues were a private matter for the property owner and landowner to resolve.