HUNDREDS of villagers who opposed any more housing development in their community feel their pleas fell on deaf ears.
More than 300 Bunbury residents wrote to Crewe and Nantwich Council objecting to three separate planning applications for six homes and a stable block in Bunbury Lane.
Every application was passed by the planning committee with only one dissenting member.
To the astonishment of campaigners, Bunbury ward council-lor Brian Dykes was not even allowed to take part in the debate as he was deemed to have a vested interest.
Residents had reached the end of their tether after a previous nine-home scheme got permission in School Lane. When fresh applications arrived many decided enough was enough.
Family men Andrew Caldwell and Tony Greco, who live near the sites, decided to start a campaign arguing against the loss of open space and raising concerns about whether Bunbury Primary School, roads and sewers could cope.
A disappointed Mr Greco, a businessman, said: 'The council had over 300 letters of objections. They had never had that sort strength of opposition before, but they didn't take any notice. They just passed it. I can't understand. Does it not matter then how many people object to a particular planning application when the council pay no heed?
'The borough councillor Brian Dykes was not even allowed to represent us. They said he's got an interest. Of course he's got an interest, he lives in the same village - that's why he is our representative!'
Fellow campaigner Andrew Caldwell, managing director of a hand tools company, said: 'There were something like 350 letters that went in which is amazing.
'When I read them, they were all names and addresses from Bun-bury and they were all saying the same thing.'
Mr Caldwell believes planners may have been swayed by an offer from the company behind the application for four houses at The Sycamores and Goodyer Packaging site. The developers said it would contribute £30,000 towards affordable homes in the vicinity which he suspects meant other issues were put to one side.
The Hillhouse application was to demolish stable buildings and erect two detached houses in their place. The scheme would not have worked for the applicant if a separate application for a new stable block to rehouse the horses had not gone through. So Mr Caldwell was angry that his and wife Diana's objections to the stable block seemed to have been lost and were therefore not taken into account in the debate. 'They didn't have the full facts to make a decision,' he said.
Cllr Dykes (Con, Bunbury) was 'disappointed' that under a strict code of conduct brought in by the Government he was not allowed to represent his constituents' views at the planning committee.
He said: 'I think Bunbury has had more than its fair share of housing. We had the new development in School Lane which went up recently. There are nine houses on there. I have to say these applications were within the settlement boundary and permission would be applicable to both.'
Planning officer Richard Taylor, who recommended approval for the Goodyer site, said: 'We have to balance the objections against the policies in the Local Plan and national guidance. The site was within the development area of the village. There was no reason to act against its approval.'
Planning officer David Snelson, who recommended approval for the slightly amended Hillhouse homes site, said: 'Just because there are objections doesn't mean it should be refused. We have to look at it in terms of national policy and our local policy. If it complies with policy then I see my job is to recommend approval.'
