Golf course homes plan gets go-ahead after council U-turn

A NUNEATON golf course is set to be replaced with hundreds of homes after a U-turn by councillors.

Plough Hill Golf Course in Galley Common is now due to have up to 300 homes built on it despite a virtually identical application being rejected in November.

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council’s planning committee removed their reasons for refusal at a meeting in January, and on Tuesday night formally approved a new application by the same developers.

Planning committee member Cllr Dan Gissane, who represents Galley Common, who voted against approving the plans, accused the council of making the decision over fears turning it down might lead to a costly planning inquiry.

He said: “There was a threat of costs which is fair enough, we don’t want to waste people’s money, but it feels like they’ve caved in without getting the compromises.

“The roads are so busy already and all these new homes will make it worse. Galley Common school is overcrowded, it’s tiny.

“One of the arguments for the application was that the Hartshill schools are within walking distance.

“I did ask how that will work in real life as I know I’d certainly struggle to get my four and six year olds to walk that, let along with school bags, drinks cups and a baby in a pushchair and get there before 9am.”

The committee discussed the application from Plough Hill Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), which was exactly the same to the one they refused just months before.

The developers had appealed the decision and then submitted a new planning application for houses on the same site with “additional information to address the reasons that the last application was refused for.”

It had been turned down against the recommendation of council officers in November, amid concerns of overpopulation and lack of infra- structure, especially roads and schools. Planning committee chairman Cllr Bill Hancox admitted that the likelihood of losing an appeal was a factor in approving the application.

He said the reasons for refusal on the last application were removed after the county council would not support it.

“The refusal was based on highways, they removed their objections and said they couldn’t support it at appeal,” he said. “Like any application we have to be aware of possi- ble consequences if we refuse something against planning officers’ recommendations.

“That can really be a substantial cost to the council.

“If we are going to refuse it we have to have proper planning reasons to do it and we didn’t have them before and we didn’t this time. It’s got to be evidence based because otherwise we are going to be hammered at appeal.”

Cllr Hancox has also stressed that it is an outline application and more details will come back to the planning committee at a later date.