Residents treated 'disgustingly' in row over complaints about Arnold Clark motorstore
Residents living in a Wakefield village are being treated in a "disgusting" way in a row over the conduct of a nearby business, it's been claimed.
Peter Daniels, the chairman of Crigglestone Parish Council, told a public meeting that Wakefield Council have "totally ignored" those living in the area who've complained about problems stemming from the site of car dealers Arnold Clark.
Mr Daniels said that the bright lights coming from the motorstore, which is located on the Calder Park estate were causing a nuisance and the business had removed a footpath to make way for extra car spaces.
He told the council's head of planning enforcement, Ian Garratt, that numerous complaints to the authority about the issues were going unheard.
Arnold Clark has been contacted about the claims, but has yet to respond.
Speaking at a town and parish council liaison group meeting on Wednesday, Mr Daniels said: "The way the people of Crigglestone have been treated by Wakefield Council is absolutely disgusting.
"These multi-national companies are just allowed to get away with murder.
"We've complained about the lighting and the illuminations that come from it and nothing gets done.
"I happen to live adjacent to it, unfortunately.
"A footpath has gone. There's a car park now in place of the footpath.
"We have to live with them constantly breaching the planning regulations. For two years we've had to live with this and we just get completely ignored - nothing ever gets done.
"The people of Crigglestone are up in arms about this."
Mr Garratt said he had been originally unaware of the issues surrounding the Arnold Clark site, but said he would take the points raised "on board".
Other parish and town council representatives made similar remarks about issues in their own areas, and Mr Garratt acknowledged that the number of complaints made about planning enforcement at the council had risen over the last year.
But he stressed that although the authority never ignored alerts from members of the public, the council was working with "limited resources".
He said that taking a developer to court was not always in the public interest because of the expense involved and the high demands of proving a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt.
He said: "The priority is resolving the issue, so that residents and members of the public are no longer affected.
"We won't waste taxpayer's money on a prosecution that won't be regarded as a technical breach of the regulations - I have to make that point.
Local Democracy Reporting Service