Wickersley enviro campaigners slam 'out of character' building plans

The Wickersley, Rotherham’s Own Natural Greenbelt (WRONG) campaigners are battling Rotherham Borough Council and Harron Homes over planned construction at Nethermoor Drive and Second Lane.

The developer wants to build 250 houses there, which objectors claimed is many more than could be supported by current infrastructure.

Hasty house-building will stretch schools, roads, sewerage and habitats, including those on greenbelt land, WRONG members said.

They have enlisted lawyers and engineers to challenge the plans on the grounds that they ignore government guidelines like the Manual for Streets and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Campaigners have insisted WRONG is not driven by NIMBYism, but concern for Wickersley’s appearance and amenities.

Objections have been made to a supposed archaeological survey which has stripped the site of its topsoil, now piled four metres high, and cleared the land.

The group said this was planners effectively “rubber-stamping” the development months before planning consultations have ended as it has not been subject to the usual conditions for such a survey.

They also highlighted the recent felling of a mature oak tree on council land, near the site’s proposed access route, by unknown parties.

Former civil engineer and WRONG founder Nick Cragg said he thought RMBC planners were too eager to satisfy builders and meet government targets for new homes.

“If the local authority doesn’t meet housing targets, developers can appeal directly to government and the council loses control completely,” he said.

“They don’t want to lose control, so they’re ticking boxes and jumping through hoops.

“We think they’ve chosen Wickersley because it’s low-hanging fruit, which will be snapped up by developers.”

He added: “They want to build ten houses to the acre. The density around there is three to the acre, so it’s completely out of character.

“We presented an alternative plan, but it was rejected without any consideration.

“Planners have become facilitators for developers - that’s a huge conflict of interest. They should be looking out for the interests of local residents.”

WRONG members said they had struggled to get answers in writing, with planning officers preferring to talk by phone.

Paul Woodcock, RMBC’s assistant planning director, said no decisions had been made, adding: “All comments will be taken into account and anyone who has registered a right to speak will be invited to address the planning board before any decision is made.”

A council spokeswoman said: “Any permission required for archaeological survey work is provided by the landowner, not the planning authority.

“Permission for the removal of the tree was not required by the local planning authority - however, as the tree was on council-owned land, we have reported the felling to the police.”

She added the head of planning and the case officer had met with WRONG and discussed issues on the telephone and in writing.