Residents claim they were not consulted over Kingswinford B&B plans

Stourbridge News: The Woodman Inn The Woodman Inn

RESIDENTS living near a former Kingswinford pub that will soon be turned into a restaurant and B&B have claimed they were not consulted before the application went before Dudley planners.

The Woodman Inn was given the go-ahead for the change of use at the council's Development Control Committee meeting on November 18, despite residents raising concerns about parking and noise levels for residents of Mount Pleasant.

Objector Reg Flavell, who spoke out at the meeting, has since sent a letter to Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, claiming that many residents closely affected by the changes were not notified by the council.

He wrote: "The council officer asserted that 22 notifications had been sent to local residents. I can state quite categorically that many residents living within 100 feet, some even closer, have received no notification, whilst others living over 100 yards away in another street were notified. We believe that this hardly shows local consultation."

Mr Flavell told the News: "I want to know what his reaction is to the fact that my neighbours and myself were not consulted at all."

The letter was also sent to Dudley South MP Chris Kelly, who in response, has also written to Mr Pickles to raise the matter "at the highest level".

Mr Kelly added: "I will be forwarding Mr Flavell the minister’s response in due course."

Councillor Judy Foster, cabinet member for economic regeneration, said the claims were being looked into.

She said: "The local planning authority has received a letter regarding concerns over the consultation process undertaken for the planning application in relation to The Woodman Inn.

"We are now looking into this matter and we are confident all statutory consultation procedures were followed correctly and we will provide the complainant with a full response in due course."

Comments (2)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:59pm Tue 3 Dec 13

The Villan says...

This smacks of Nimbyism.

This property was a public house in the first place before it closed. Therefore, prior to closing, it was open until late 7 nights a week with a potential for nuisance behaviour etc. Hence, their argument is not valid.

So to complain they weren't informed properly is a bit late in the day. Surely it is better for the neighbourhood to have the building in use rather than empty and an eyesore with the chance vandalism whilst being empty.
This smacks of Nimbyism. This property was a public house in the first place before it closed. Therefore, prior to closing, it was open until late 7 nights a week with a potential for nuisance behaviour etc. Hence, their argument is not valid. So to complain they weren't informed properly is a bit late in the day. Surely it is better for the neighbourhood to have the building in use rather than empty and an eyesore with the chance vandalism whilst being empty. The Villan

5:17pm Mon 16 Dec 13

kingswinfordman says...

NIMBYISM at its worst.

The place has been a pub for many years, certainly before the vast majority of the residents or their families moved into the area.

The Woodman has a large car park and I would imagine that restaurant or B&B customers will make far less noise than the pub customers used to make.

I think that this is a good use for the property and should be encourage, you never know by saving the building intact it might be able to reopen as a traditional pub again.

If the pub had been knocked down and a dozen or so houses were built on the site as originally suggested the poor neighbours would have been facing far worse parking problems.
NIMBYISM at its worst. The place has been a pub for many years, certainly before the vast majority of the residents or their families moved into the area. The Woodman has a large car park and I would imagine that restaurant or B&B customers will make far less noise than the pub customers used to make. I think that this is a good use for the property and should be encourage, you never know by saving the building intact it might be able to reopen as a traditional pub again. If the pub had been knocked down and a dozen or so houses were built on the site as originally suggested the poor neighbours would have been facing far worse parking problems. kingswinfordman

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree