Archived News - Planning
Home > News > Archived News > Planning
Gypsy site in Billington to be extended
A gypsy caravan site in Billington is to be extended despite objections from local parish councils.
The application was for change of use of a horse paddock to the siting of five caravans to the rear of the existing gypsy caravan site at 28 Stanbridge Road, Billington.
South Beds Planning Committee gave the go ahead after acknowledging the need for at least 40 travellers' pitches in the next five years. And the Housing Act 2004 requires local housing authorities to include gypsies and travellers in their accommodation assessments, including drawing up a strategy demonstrating how those needs will be met.
Objections included these statements from Stanbridge Parish Council: "There are large existing sites in the adjoining parishes of Stanbridge, Tilsworth and Eaton Bray. There is no justification for yet another site within the area.
"There are also concerns regarding land being purchased and illegally occupied. Also further erosion of the Green Belt by intensive development and the development is not in keeping with the surrounding area."
Get the Leighton Buzzard Observer every Tuesday.
Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 24 June 2008
Bungalow plan goes to appeal
Plans to build a detached bungalow in a road in Eaton Bray will be back under the microscope after a planning appeal was lodged.
In January, South Beds District Council rejected an application to put up the home on land next to 41 Moor End. But now an appeal has been lodged by the applicants, Mr and Mrs Wright, for the council to have another look.
Anyone who wants to comment on the proposal should do so by sending three copies of their representations to the Planning Inspectorate at 3/16 Eagle Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN.
The letters should arrive by April 28, 2008.
For the latest news from Eaton Bray and beyond, get the Dunstable Gazette every Wednesday and make a daily date with Dunstable Today.
Source: Dunstable Gazette, 16 April 2008
Stable conversion goes to appeal
A new move is being made to try to win the planning go-ahead to convert stables in Eaton Bray.
In August, South Beds District Council rejected the idea of converting the stables into a residential dwelling.
Now an appeal has been lodged to try to overturn that decision on the application for the Dyers Road stables.
The appeal will be decided through written representations and a site visit from a planning inspector. Anyone who would like to see the grounds of appeal can do so at the district council offices, in High Street North, during normal working hours.
Comments can be made in writing. Three copies of any written representations should be sent to: The Planning Inspectorate, 3/16 Eagle Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN.
Comments should include the reference APP/N0220/A/07/2056120 and the name of the person who has lodged the appeal, Mrs M. Lay.
Written representations must be received by December 11.
They can only be considered if copies are also forwarded to the person appealing, before the above date.
Source: Dunstable Gazette, 14 November 2007
Project approval based 'on error'
Families affected by a proposed development in Eaton Bray are calling for South Beds District Council to come clean about whether it got the go-ahead because of an error.
Members of the council's planning committee agreed to give outline planning permission for building work on a strip of land next to Bower Lane, which will back on to homes in Medley Close.
But neighbours claim that the strip used to be part of the Green Belt, and they say that they've yet to be given a reason for it being removed.
Sidney Willis, of Medley Close, said after the decision was made: "It was in the Green Belt, and I have maps to prove it. What we want to know is where they got permission to take it out of the Green Belt."
Mr Willis, 81, claims that the council cannot come up with a reason for removing the Green Belt, and has alleged that the change may be the result of an error while officers were drawing up a map which was used for the council's Local Plan.
"It was an error, it was wrong and it should never have been done," he told members of the planning committee.
The row started three years ago, when the landowners first applied for outline permission to build on the site.
Councillors agreed to grant it. But the terms of that agreement have now expired, so a fresh application had to be lodged. Councillor Tony Northwood, a member of the planning committee at the time of the first application, said at the meeting about the site not being in the Green Belt: "I suspect it was done in error."
Mr Willis said later: "It would have been an opportunity to look again, but they haven't. They should have looked in 2003 when we first objected. South Beds' planning department should have seen this was wrong before they put it up for public approval.
"Had they taken the bother and said 'Let's investigate it,' then something would've been done.
"They should have either admitted they'd done it or put it back in," he said.
Mr Willis, a former district councillor, has been frustrated in his efforts to find out why the plot of land is no longer in the Green Belt.
"Everyone I spoke to said they could find no reason to take it out the Green Belt," he said.
People living in Medley Close have formed a committee opposing the development.
They have also demanded to know under the Freedom of Information Act why the are was removed from the Green Belt.
The Gazette put Mr Willis's concerns to the council, which confirmed that part of the strip was in Green Belt land until 1995.
A spokeswoman for the council verified that there is no record of why the change was made to the Green Belt boundaries, but said that this is often the case when changes are made to clarify the boundary line. She pointed out that in this case the new Green Belt boundaries follow property boundaries, whereas previously they did not.
The council also confirmed that the issue had been looked at by senior officers including the chief executive.
But a local government watchdog had decided no to pursue the complaint.
The Freedom of Information request is currently being looked at, a spokesman said.
Mr Willis has also voiced some doubts about whether the thin strip of land next to Bower Lane is suitable for development.
"If that piece of land is used, how and where can they build on it? It's not wide enough to build houses on. I don't see how they're going to do it. It's crazy," he said.
Source: Dunstable Gazette, 18 October 2006
Parish council's view is likely to be overruled
Outline plans to develop land next to 23-25 Bower Lane, Eaton Bray, look likely to ge the go-ahead, despite objections from the parish council and some neighbours.
Objections include that the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on nearby homes and would lead to unacceptable and dangerous kerbside parking.
The scheme is set to be considered at a meeting of South Beds District Council's planning committee tomorrow (Wednesday 11th) when councillors are expected to be influenced by a planning officer's report recommending approval.
This advises: "It is not considered that the development of an overgrown parcel of land would result in the loss of open space of recreational or amenity value and it is considered that the site is capable of accommodating a residential development in a manner that would be an efficient use of land, would respect and enhance the character of the surrounding area and would preserve and provide adequate amenity for residents."
Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 10 October 2006
'Death Trap' protest
Angry Eaton Bray neighbours were campaigning to overturn a council decision over the access to a proposed new development.
South Beds district councillors had given outline permission for Wallace Drive to be extended by up to 195 houses. But protesters said the road would be overburdened by traffic and would become a death trap if it was used as the access to the new homes.
Source: Dunstable Gazette, 29 July 1982
New homes controversy
District council planners gave the green light to the outline sceme for a controversial new housing development in Eaton Bray.
But the scheme still had to be considered by Environment Minister Michael Heseltine. Dunstable based builders Mead Estates wanted to develop 13 acres of land at the read ot High Street.
Source: Dunstable Gazette, 22 July 1982