Fierce rivals agree about ‘controversial’ major application in Rotherham is ‘refreshing’, group says

At Rotherham Council’s planning board meeting yesterday, the committee approved a development that will see the erection of 217 new homes on a huge piece of farmland close to a golf club on Shrogswood Road in Whiston.

The proposal was objected to by more than 90 residents, the Whiston Residents Action Group – WRAG, Alexander Stafford (the local MP) and others.

Mr Stafford, the Rother Valley MP, was one of the members of the public who made a speech in the chamber.

He said the development was “awful” and added he believed in preserving our “beautiful countryside and farmlands” over alternatives – concrete, to name one.

Mr Stafford said that there was going to be a “3,250 per cent” increase in traffic on Shrogswood Road.

He said: “Over 3,000 per cent increase on a road that was never designed for traffic.”

When he was talking about the lack of mitigation in place, Mr Stafford added it was some sort of “fairytale” that residents would use cycling and buses.

At the same time, Jake Richards, Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Rother Valley, was also campaigning against the proposal.

Mr Richards couldn’t attend the meeting but told the Local Democracy Service that this was “a wrong development”.

He said: “Whilst we need new houses for families to get on the housing ladder, this is the wrong development for the proposed location.

“There are huge concerns as to traffic consequences during the building work and once the houses are built. I am particularly worried about the effect on local services – with the GP services and schools already struggling after cuts implemented over the last 13 years of this Conservative government. There is also the issue of flooding in Whiston.

“Every time we suffer heavy rainfall, I am assisting people in Whiston who have to leave their property as a result. There is reason to believe the development would make the situation worse.”

In a Facebook post last night, WRAG (the action group) expressed their disappointment over the decision to give the proposal the go-ahead but added “it is refreshingly notable” that both Mr Stafford (Conservative) and Mr Richards (Labour) were actively campaigning against the development.

The post says: “Interestingly enough, the applicant didn’t even bother to turn up to comment! No doubt, they were very happy to leave the process to RMBC Planning Department, who could have been easily confused with the applicant’s agent, so assiduously did they present the case to maximise the applicant’s profits and make things easy for them…

“May I take the opportunity to thank everyone who has supported the fight against the development of the site. It is refreshingly notable that both the MP for Rother Valley who is Conservative and the Labour party candidate for the Rother Valley seat have both been active in clearly voicing their opposition to the development.”

The application was approved by a six-to-five majority.