Extra Gypsy homes get go-ahead - Cheshire

From the Winsford Guardian

MORE pitches will be built in Winsford after planners finally gave the green light to amended proposals for a new Gypsy and Travellers’ site off Barlow Drive.

Eighteen permanent pitches will be provided on a 1.22 hectare plot on Woodford Park Industrial Estate.

Each pitch will have a utility block, car parking for two vehicles, and room for both a touring caravan and a static caravan.

Twenty pitches were approved in February but the decision was called in amid fierce opposition from residents and town council.

Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWAC) gave the altered proposal the go ahead on Thursday night, at a meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee.

Supporting documents claim the site is of ‘strategic significance’ to the council’s plans to provide Gypsy and Travellers sites.

The 18 new pitches at Barlow Drive are in addition to a Travellers’ site on Rilshaw Lane.

There is also a travelling Showpersons’ site at Bradford Road, with plans for another on Winsford Industrial Estate.

Clr Don Beckett spoke out against the proposals in February.

He said: “I object still to this application on such concerns as the size, the massing and the affect on future employment and jobs, and not less the affect on housing prices in Winsford.

“We already have three sites in Winsford. There are six more in Middlewich and Sandbach and more in Crewe. We should spread the sites out around Cheshire West.”

CWAC has allocated £2.7 million to support traveller sites.

Alison Amesbury, CWAC’s housing strategy and enabling manager, said there was ‘well evidenced and long standing’ need for permanent gipsy and traveller sites in the borough.

She said: “There are a large number of unauthorised camps. This will only continue until permanent provision is made.

“This site will begin to address the long standing and unmet need of gipsy and travellers in the borough.”

She added that other sites had been looked at, but Barlow Drive was the ‘best suited’.

Six councillors voted in favour; two against the proposals, one abstained.