A frustrated Penrith developer has blasted senior council planning bosses — questioning their knowledge of the town and claiming its senior development officer only visits once a month.
The broadside was made at a meeting of Westmorland and Furness Council’s planning committee at Penrith Town Hall on Wednesday.
It was the latest twist between developers Atkinson Building Contractors and council planners about where the built-up area of Penrith town ends and surrounding open countryside starts.
The definition has a huge bearing on whether new developments get the yes or no.
Company director Steve Atkinson effectively urged the committee to disregard the advice of Mark Lynch, the council’s interim planning development manager hired
on a contractual basis and formerly of South Lakeland District Council.
Mr Atkinson, who insists a plot at Beacon Edge is within Penrith town, claimed at the meeting that Mr Lynch had told him in an email that he did not want to do site meetings because he only visited once a month.
Mr Lynch did not respond to that charge. The Herald approached the council afterwards and it said a case officer had attended a pair of site visits. It stopped short of revealing Mr Lynch’s working arrangements.
Mr Atkinson told councillors: “I believe I know Penrith pretty well. I’ve built hundreds of houses in Penrith — literally over 500 affordable houses we’ve brought to this table.
“We have probably got something on this agenda every month. So I feel like I’ve got a pretty good idea of what’s in Penrith and what isn’t in Penrith.”
Turning to councillors, he said: “When Mark (Lynch) tries to tell you where Penrith is and Penrith isn’t — it’s an opinion and you’ve got nothing concrete that says where that is. There’s three houses to the other side (of the site).”
He added: “Penrith Town Council think it (the site) is in Penrith, why would they not know where it is? How many people in here are fully sure where Penrith is if it’s not there? It is in Penrith and one house in there would sit perfectly.”
Mr Atkinson has been trying to win outline permission from planners to build a large, detached home — this time for his own family.
The location, in an open field between the properties East Larches and Lynwood on Beacon Edge, has been mired in disagreement. With houses either side, some there for years, the argument centres on whether it now falls within Penrith urban or rural, and whether the current Local Plan, which strictly controls where development can or cannot go, contains a major loophole.
A house at the location isn’t regarded as infill because that flexibility only applies to developments in scattered villages and hamlets, the meeting was told.
Mr Lynch presented the report and recommendation drawn up by a council planning case officer.
Mr Atkinson’s application was recommended for refusal — contrary to the view of Penrith Town Council — which approves of it going there.
Mr Lynch told the planning committee that the council’s Local Plan policy team deemed the site at the edge of Penrith town and therefore outside the town boundary and in open countryside — with any new housing there contrary to current planning policies.
Mr Lynch said: “Because it’s an open field and there’s a transition from urban to rural, if you start building in there, that does not comply with the policy.”
Mr Lynch said the council had consulted with its Local Plan policy team which had deemed the site in the Local Plan as at the edge and not within the town.
Mr Lynch said: “If you ask two people you get two different opinions. Your job as decision-makers is to decide whether you agree with the officers or the applicant. There is no definite line on a map that says to one side is the urban area of the town and to the other side is the countryside — it’s a matter of interpretation.”
Committee member Cllr Colin Atkinson (Con, Skelton) (no relation) said: “With all due respect, that is very subjective and that’s your opinion and it’s the opinion of the applicant that there’s houses, a reservoir, a swimming pool (beyond that) and it’s a built-up area after that. I’m not convinced we have established where the boundary of Penrith is.”
Mr Atkinson’s planning agent, Kate Bellwood, implored the committee to defer and told them: “Follow your own view and make your own assessment at a site visit”.
Cllr Peter Baker, a Lib Dem councillor who lives on Beacon Edge, spoke not as a planning committee member, but as an objector on behalf of residents. Cllr Baker urged the committee to refuse.
Cllr Mike Eyles (Lib Dem, Penrith East), the vice chairman of the planning committee, also backed council officers.
“This is definitely open field, open space,” said Mr Eyles. “If we allow this to be developed on, the rest will be as well. Our policy people have come up with a boundary for Penrith, which I agree with. I’m very happy with the officer’s recommendation.”
However, Councillor Atkinson told a Liberal Democrat councillor, of Crosby Ravensworth: “If you’re making a decision and you maybe don’t know Penrith as well as I do myself or some of my colleagues, perhaps if there is a misunderstanding or a lack of insight of where the area is, can I respectfully request a site visit?”
The suggestion did not win any support from other councillors. The eight-member committed voted 7-1 to refuse with Cllr Atkinson against.
Afterwards, Bradley Atkinson, a director at the firm, said they would appeal. The matter will be settled by an independent planning inspector with costs for doing so levied against the council, Mr Atkinson added.
Mr Atkinson said they were very disappointed by the decision and that the latest application had tried to overcome the incredibly subjective points which led to a previous refusal.
“Members didn’t all have an understanding of the site and its surroundings and were urged to have a site visit by ourselves and member Colin Atkinson, but these pleas were denied without reason,” he said.
Westmorland and Furness Council hit back and said its Penrith-based planning team had decades of experience dealing with planning in the Eden area.
“The team is justifiably proud of the constructive and professional relationships it has built with local developers and they are always willing to facilitate meetings and inspections, when requested and wherever possible, whether on-site, in the office, or online,” its statement said.
“All planning applications are subject to on-site visits by an assigned case officer and we can confirm that these visits were undertaken in relation to the two planning applications in question.”
