• Search

Parents amazed by tramper outcry

Date published: 16 November 2012

THE family granted permission for a business and home for their disabled son in Greenfield’s green belt say they were surprised at the opposition.

Campaigners were outraged when councillors voted nine-three to pass the proposals for a tramper hire centre and three bedroom home in Manchester Road.

They claimed that the business — offering adapted vehicles for disabled people to explore the countryside — was just way of getting permission to build a family home.

Kathleen and David McNeeney will live at the home with their son David as his carers.

Mrs McNeeney said he would be involved as much as possible in the business and explained: “I was surprised at the opposition to it because we are trying to run a social enterprise giving mobility to rural areas to less-able people.

“We felt that the application itself and what it contained should gain support on its own merit because of the type of things we are trying to do.”

She said the centre would be an opportunity for families to enjoy the countryside together, by walking or cycling with those using the trampers.
for a full version of this story buy the Chronicle or read the eChron and iChron digital versions.


“I was surprised at the opposition to it because we are trying to run a social enterprise giving mobility to rural areas to less-able people."

Petty whingers... Hope all goes well in your venture.. what a good idea to make the great outdoors more accessible to those who otherwise couldn't go there.

Mr McNeeney you shouldn't be surprised any change in Greenfield the GGRA will always object

The main point here is that this is Protected Green Belt Land. Land is designated Green Belt for a reason. This site has been chosen by the family for its residential potential NOT for the benefit of the disabled. In fact the family have made previous attempts to have this land removed from the Green Belt going back over 10 years, to permit the building of a house! There are much better sites in Greenfield for this venture which GGRA would not doubt support.

OMBC have opened the floodgates. Anyone can now presumably get permission to build residential housing on the green belt if they include some minute element of 'social' enterprise.

Just wait for the next project when they try to build 20 luxury houses and an injured kitten sanctury.

Green Belt issues aside - one look at the plans tells you all you need to know:
No designated disabled parking on site.
No evidence of wheelchair access ramps or handrails
Lower ground floor external door not wide enough for wheelchair access
Internal corridors not wide enough for wheelchair passing
No disabled access to third floor or garage areas
No evidence of fire strategy
No business plan provided with application
Viable community facility for the disabled or private house - you decide

This is calculated and cynical planning on the part of the developer and gives absolutely nothing to disabled people as access to the countryside down the bridle path is extremely restricted plus the damage to the greenbelt is simply wrong. Ironic isn't it that the applicant was once the chair of the GGRA and pretended to be in favour of protecting the greenbelt...funny that!

The opposition is not against providing access for the disabled to the countryside, however there are serious questions about whether this location is suitable or provides any significantly improved access. The opposition is to the luxury 3 bedroom house that has been smuggled onto the green belt inside the Trojan horse. Two small secure sheds and a small office space are all that is required to run this enterprise.

Mrs Mc Neeney suprised at the opposition? Approx 50 objections to 1st application. Ojections to the house not to trampers. You do not need a house to run a hire business.

Doesn't social enterprise require involvement of the community? No community consulation here. Doesn't social enterprise avoid harm to the environment? Significant harm to greenbelt as per OMBC. Doesn't social enterprise avoid excessive personal profit? Private 3 bed house - who will benefit from this? Not the community!

It will be interesting to see if OMBC police the conditions attached to this Planning Permission. As far as I can see their record on breaches of conditions is abysmal! Well i Hole Farm half a mile away had 10 condition attached to a Retrospective Planning App 12 months ago most of them breached, OMBC have admitted they are aware and are "looking in to it" no point in conditions if they are not policed. They need to get a "backbone"


Have Your Say

Post New Comment


To post a comment you must first Log in.  Don't have an account? Register Now!