Search This Blog

Contact the Blog

Contact the Crewenews by using our form click here

Join me on the forum below as I am on the staff as Samuria 24/7/365 worldwide support all FREE

 PC Help Forum

'

Thursday 1 December 2016

Cheshire East hails protection of Jodrell Bank in planning appeal decision

 

Cheshire East Council has hailed the decision of the secretary of state to reject the development of 119 homes close to the Jodrell Bank observatory. 

The landmark decision recognised that the ‘reasonable protection’ of the observatory is a matter of global significance.

Councillor Ainsley Arnold, Cheshire East Council cabinet member for housing and planning, said: “We are delighted the secretary of state has supported the council’s case and has dismissed this planning appeal.

“Jodrell Bank observatory is a vital asset to this borough, the nation and the international scientific community. The protective zone around the telescope has been in place since 1973 and we are very pleased that its importance has been recognised and reinforced.

“As a council, we are doing everything possible to meet the housing needs of our area. However, this was simply the wrong development in the wrong place. It is very good to see that the long-term protection of vital scientific work has prevailed over the short-term high demand in housing supply.

“This further underlines the importance of the ongoing collaboration between the council and Manchester University over operations at the site.”

The planning appeal concerned the development of 119 new homes at Main Road, in Goostrey, about two miles south east of the observatory, proposed by Gladman Developments.

In making this decision, the secretary of state considered that the development would ‘impair the efficiency of the Jodrell Bank radio telescope’ and that ‘the protection of Jodrell Bank observatory as a facility of international importance transcends the housing land supply circumstances of the case’.

Overall he concluded that the harm to the efficiency of the radio telescope carried ‘substantial weight against the proposal.’

No comments: