Dozens of banner-waving protestors have demonstrated their angry opposition to plans to build six homes on a green space in Tamerton Foliot.
The residents gathered on the small plot of land in Mary Dean Avenue on May 22 to show the strength of feeling against the proposal.
Since the application was submitted for ‘Permission in Principle’ to build the homes on the land, nearly 100 letters of objection have been submitted to the local planning authority.
Tamerton Foliot Development Key Takeaways:
Strong Local Opposition: Residents of Tamerton Foliot, supported by local councillors and conservation groups, have strongly opposed plans to build six homes on a long-used green space in Mary Dean Avenue, citing safety, congestion, and the loss of a valued community area.
Community Wellbeing at Risk: Objections highlight the importance of the green space for children’s play, community interaction, and mental and physical health, with locals arguing that its loss would harm the wellbeing of both current and future residents.
Developer Cites Legal Ownership: The applicant, Maltford Limited, argues that the land is privately owned and underused due to its slope, and that alternative green spaces are nearby—asserting that development would not significantly impact local open space provision.
Among them is one from Southway Councillor Carol Ney who wrote:
“I have been contacted by residents who have raised concerns about this development and the loss of children’s play areas on the green piece of land, as well as the issues they currently have in parking around the school.
“I urge the council to refuse this application on the grounds that the area is a popular residential area with young children that use and have used this green space for over 40 years. There is a safety risk to children attending Mary Dean school from extra vehicles and the loss of green space will be detrimental to the village.”
Tamerton Foliot Village Conservation Society has objected to the application on the grounds that communal green spaces should be maintained for the benefit of the community along with the fact that additional traffic through the village is unsupportable. The Society argues that Mary Dean Avenue is badly congested at times together with hazards for pedestrians and children at schooltimes and that further housing would aggravate this problem.
Dr Sarah Payne commented:
“I object to this planning application as I believe it will negatively impact the residents’ health and wellbeing. It is well documented that open green space enhances well-being and improve mental health.
“As a local in Tamerton Foliot and walking past this space daily I have seen this green space used for sports and recreation. Most mornings there are a collection of school mums standing on the green chatting and after school children playing.
“There are often bikes, scooters and basketball hoops on the green showing that it is used daily by the residents. I believe that building houses on this land would adversely affect the locals physical and mental health contributing to childhood obesity and poor mental health.
“Please decline this application and protect our green spaces for our current and future generation’s health.”
Applicants Maltford Limited has retained PWA Planning to seek permission in principle for the erection of up to six dwellings at Mary Dean Avenue in Tamerton Foliot. Maltford Limited is a Manchester base company which is described at Companies House as a business ‘Buying and selling of own real estate.’
Among their arguments in favour of the plan, the applicants stated: “While it is acknowledged that the scheme would result in the loss of an informal open space, its sloping topography limits its value and use as an open space. Additionally, the site is in private ownership, and current use by the public is unauthorised.
“The landowner could lawfully restrict access and remove any perception of public use. Furthermore, residents would continue to have access to two designated open spaces nearby, ensuring continued access to local green spaces. As such, the loss of this space would not result in a deficiency of open space provision.
Deadline for comments was May 29 as the Chronicle went to press.
