Is This the New Planning Deception?

 This is the January 12th view of Crank Road, along the front of the church, as shown in the church's independent Traffic Survey as presented to the council:

This is the view of the same road on 8th August:

Southward View From Church Entrance

Northward View From Church Entrance

 From January 12th Traffic Survey

   

Should A Church Have Morals?

  Should A Church Have Morals?

Rear View of Billinge Family Church

This is a view of the rear of Billinge Family Church as seen from a resident's garden. At one time, when residents arose each morning they had a view of a beautiful house with landscaped gardens. Not any more. This industrial-looking monstrosity, which is approximately twice the depth of the original house and towers high above surrounding properties, has replaced it.

Needless to say, all residents were horrified when they saw what was being built. In fact, it is said that the builders demanded weekly payments because they could not believe it would ever be allowed to remain standing. But it was.

When the church pastor was challenged about his actions in producing this, the reply was: “It's legal”. Seemingly this was all that mattered, nothing else.

Should a church not have a moral responsibility to its neighbours and to everyone else? Does this apply here?

Were the Planners Deceived in 2001 and 2003?

Were the Planners Deceived in 2001 and 2003?

In 2001, Billinge Family Church applied to Wigan Council for planning permission (A/01/53903):

"To erect 4 No. detached dwellings pursuant to demolition of existing hall and layout new vehicular access thereto on 0.23 Ha of land to be severed from curtilage of church (application in outline with means of access submitted for approval."

Furthermore, the report to the Development Control Committee stated on page 62 that it was "actively seeking to relocate to alternative premises and intend[ed] to offer the existing property for sale."

 

2001 Plan Showing Widened Driveway

 It should be noted that part of this proposal was to widen the driveway to accommodate the 4 new houses.

 However, the church did not move, did not demolish its existing building, nor ever build 4 hew houses. But it did at a later date construct the widened driveway.

Then, in 2003 the church applied for planning permission (A/03/58136):

"To extend existing Church ... to rear at two storeys to provide Place of Worship at ground floor and 2no. meeting rooms and kitchen at lower ground floor, together with 2no external staircases, and to layout additional 6no. car parking spaces (giving 22 no. spaces in total) and to layout new vehicular access."

2003 Plan: Widened Driveway not shown

Note that the vehicular access shown in the Report to the Development Committee is not shown as extended and is still as it was pre 2001 application A/01/53903.






One of the questions arising from this is whether the planning committee knew that the church intended to extend its driveway, using the permission obtained in 2001.

Why did the church not declare its intention on the 2003 plans? It would appear that the eventual outcome was an eclectic mix of parts of the two applications A/01/53903 and A/03/58136. Is the planning procedure supposed to be used in this way?

The question also arises as to whether the church ever had any intention of building the 4 houses. Was this done merely to obtain permission to extend the driveway?

Also note that the "existing church" in 2003 was not the house "Tralee", but the old building. So why did the church not state its true intentions?

Incidentally, note the size of the proposed extension relative to the house "Tralee". Compare this to what was eventually built.

Is it acceptable that Billinge Family Church has been able to get away with this sort of behaviour time and time again, without question? Should it not be held to account?

Save Our Trees

Save Our Trees

We recently learned that Billinge Family Church Ltd, a member of the Evangelical Alliance, has extended the tarmacadam surface of its car park under the canopies of the protected trees along Crank Road, to accommodate a row of cars. However, whilst this extension would have required planning permission from Wigan Council, no such permission has ever been granted.

The roots of trees with preservation orders on them are protected. By covering them with tarmacadam in this way, this church has placed them in great danger of oxygen and water depletion, which could easily lead to their premature destruction.

Please comment as to what these trees mean to you and as to what should be done about this situation?

Hello. This is a new blog so residents can communicate. We can also say what we think by adding comments. These can be applied anonymously if required.