Wrenthorpe flats and shops plan rejected over ‘health and safety concerns’ for residents

Councillors voted unanimously against the plan to convert a derelict business premises on Wrenthopre Road.

More than 100 residents in the village objected to the scheme, claiming it would add to “nightmare” parking problems.

The application proposed just two parking spaces at the site.

Concerns were also raised that the development would create a traffic hazard.

Wakefield Council officers had recommended that a developer’s application to build 11 flats and two retail units at the vacant site be approved.

Wrenthorpe resident John Rigby spoke on behalf of objectors at a meeting of the council’s planning and highways committee.

He said: “It is totally inappropriate.

“You have seen the blind bend that the property sits on.

“The vast majority of objections are about parking and traffic hazards.”

Mr Rigby told the meeting how recent planning applications nearby, at Roger Lane and School Lane, had been turned down due to a lack of parking spaces.

Committee member Coun Kathryn Scott asked Mr Rigby: “How difficult is it to cross that road?”

Mr Rigby replied: “It’s not difficult, as long as you wait five minutes.”

Alistair Flatman, a planning consultant speaking on behalf of the applicant, said the proposal would generate less traffic than when a business operated at the premises.

Mr Flatman said the scheme would boost housing supply in the area and encourage economic development.

He added: “The matter has been thoroughly assessed by highways officers and their conclusion is set out in the report.

“They do not raise any objections to the proposals.”

Mr Flatman said it was hoped the people attracted to living at the flats would not own cars and would instead walk, cycle or use public transport.

Charlie Keith, councillor for Wrenthorpe and Outwood West, spoke against the scheme, saying: “I am not against development, just over-development.

“I have nothing against regeneration or redevelopment done tastefully to a good standard, especially if it replaces an eyesore.

“It needs to consider the impact on the community.

“This has scant regard for the traffic impact.

“People who are neighbours to the proposal will have to live alongside it.

“This proposal is done for profit. It does nothing for this village.

“It is flawed because of the parking.”

Councillors’ reasons for refusing the application included a lack of parking and “health and safety reasons” for residents.