Sign in  |  Become a member

Matthews Garden Centre appeal set for Tuesday

By Lisa Reeves - Saturday, 17th September, 2011 - 8 comments

An appeal hearing will be held on Tuesday, 20th September, regarding the extension of SE Matthews' original planning consent, which was granted in 2005, to relocate their garden centre.

This permission, which expired in April 2010, allowed them to relocate across the road from their original centre in Green Belt land in Nether Alderley.

I & W Urquhart, who ran Matthews Garden Centre, have appealed against Cheshire East Council's refusal to grant an extension to their expired planning permission (reference 03/3214P) on the grounds that "the original case is unchanged". A planning inspector has been appointed to hear this appeal on Tuesday.

Whilst there is no association between this appeal and Dobbies, it is viewed as very significant by those opposed to Dobbies' plans because the consent for Matthews' relocation is a "material consideration" in Dobbies' Garden World application (reference 09/3109M), submitted in September 2009.

Dobbies' Planning Statement from 2009 said "The proposal is conceived as a replacement for the SE Matthews Garden Centre consented at the SE Matthews Relocation site to the north of Bollington Lane. If the present application is approved, the applicant (and SE Matthews) will enter into a S106 Agreement to extinguish the existing SE Matthews consent to ensure one garden centre will only ever be developed."

Planning application 10/1323M, for an extension to the original SE Matthews' consent, was refused in October 2010 on the grounds that there had been a change in circumstances, insufficient information had been provided regarding the mitigation of the Great Crested Newts, which are a protected species, and the lack of a satisfactory S106 Agreement.

A spokesman for The Edge Association has written to Planning Inspector regarding Tuesday's appeal hearing.

He states: "In summary, our view is that planning consent on this Green Belt site was only granted in 2005 because, at that time, it was accepted that the satisfying the needs of a major employer (AstraZeneca) would have adverse implications for a local employer (Matthews). It was therefore judged that the special circumstance test in terms of National Green Belt Policy was satisfied and approval was granted 'for this applicant only'.

"Circumstances have now changed significantly. The applicant has been trading from a different site and we understand has granted an option to sell the relevant land. The planning consent, which was for a specific user and related to special circumstances, has been allowed to lapse. The special circumstances argument no longer applies. We believe the Council was therefore absolutely correct in turning down the proposal and we are fully supportive of the representations made by local residents and of the Statement of Case that has been submitted to the Inquiry by the Council in support of that refusal."

The appeal, submitted by agents Turley Associates of behalf of I & W Urquhart, states:

"Planning permission was granted for a garden centre development in March 2005, the Council at the time deeming it an acceptable development to which special circumstances properly applied in accordance with local and national policies. That permission lapsed in April 2010 and the application to renew it was in place prior to its lapse.

"The issue, therefore, relates to whether any circumstances have changed to the extent that renewal of permission should not take place.

"The authority must demonstrate that circumstances have materially changed in planning to justify such a refusal. In this case National and Local Planning Policies are unchanged from those in force at the time of the original permission in 2005. The special circumstances justifying development are unchanged.

"The Council have claimed a changed circumstance in that they allege that the business has moved to Somerford Booths thus undermining the original special circumstances. However, this is not the case and is a misconception put forward in the Committee report of 27 October 2010. The original case is unchanged.

"There is accordingly no material reason in principle to prevent renewal of the original permission and the Council have failed to demonstrate in their reports to Committee any arguments of any strength to justify refusal."

The appeal, which is open to members of the public, will be heard at Wilmslow Leisure Centre at 10am on Tuesday 20th September.

Rodney Hamer, from The Alderley Rural Protection Organisation, said "We were very disappointed but not surprised to see this appeal application.

"We'll fight it as vigourously as we did the first application with our colleagues and associates."

The appeal documentation (reference 10/1323M) can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council planning portal. Urquhart's' planning application to extend the original consent (reference 10/1323M) and Dobbies' Garden World application (reference 09/3109M) can also be viewed on the Cheshire East Council planning portal.

8 Comments

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.

Maryanne Broquerault Saturday, 17th Sep, 2011 5:08 pm
Another example of councils dissipating time and money. From what I understand from this article, planning permission was given for a garden center and that it still the case. I fail to see their problem!
A garden centre will create employment (much needed) and a wonderful place for people to meet. My vote will be to extend the original consent.
Mike Norbury Saturday, 17th Sep, 2011 8:13 pm
Maryanne
I dont know if you know the full extent of this saga ,but as i understand it isnt S.E.Matthews who need the permission to open a garden centre but the fact that they want to sell off their permission to Dobbies garden centre (tescos).
The whole thing is a sickening attempt to develop green belt for.... oh surprise surprise profit. dont be suckered in this is extremely farcical episode and help protect a piece of rural cheshire from get rich merchants.A green site takes millenia to reach its full potential but the blink of an eye to be destroyed forever. Thats what is so annoying !
Jon Williams Saturday, 17th Sep, 2011 11:02 pm
Totally agree Maryanne - employment - yes !
Mike Norbury Sunday, 18th Sep, 2011 10:32 am
developement -no -jon. dont use the extra jobs excuse to enpower their appeal if they get their way more smaller nursery bussinesses that are already struggling would go under,a bit like when a big superstore opens and all the smaller shops fold
i wish people would stop wanting our surroundings tarmacced over if you dont like green fields clear off to a city!!!
Maryanne Broquerault Sunday, 18th Sep, 2011 12:22 pm
Mike, you sound very passionate about this, but the simple fact is all businesses are there to make a profit! Not only do the people that run them have entrepreneurial skills and contribute by paying high taxes, they are doing what the government keeps harping on about, CREATE EMPLOYMENT!
Maybe if people don't like this, North Korea would suit them better!!
Marc Asquith Sunday, 18th Sep, 2011 1:50 pm
I think its clear that Maryanne is unfamiliar with the background to this matter. Two issues have become conjoined. Firstly, the old Matthews Garden Centre was granted planning permission to re-located just across the road because they were an established business that was being 'evicted' by its landlord and had negotiated the use of another site - an open field in the green belt - that it could use. This was viewed as a special case for permitting development in the green belt by the planning committee and permission was granted. As it turned out Matthews re-established their business elsewhere and have never needed to use the planning permission. The second issue is the newly opened Bypass. One of the reassurances that were given that prevented many residents of Nether Alderley objecting to the Bypass ( which they did not need - it really only benefits Alderley Edge ) was that 'ribbon' development would not be permitted along the line of the Bypass - as had clearly happened further north - Cheadle Royal and Handforth Dean being examples. No one wanted to see the open country alongside the new Bypass turned into retail parks.

So - one entrepreneurial landowner who owns land adjacent to the southern end of the new Bypass has put these two issues together. He has done a deal with Dobbies Garden Centres who now seek to put a much larger centre at the end of the Bypass than Matthews ever intended. They also seek to move the permission from the existing site about 1/2 mile up the road so it has direct access to the Bypass.

Without the permission granted to Matthews, Dobbies prospects are pretty much dead in the water - no one gets permission to tarmac over large areas of open country generally. Matthews have never used their permission and so it has expired. This application is to extend the time limit on Matthews' permission.

The problem here is that this is an incremental process. Permissions are not generally business specific. So - once the permission has been given to it, anyone can use it. However the site given permission for Matthews is way too small for a Dobbies. So, Dobbies tactics are to get the Matthews permission up and running, then apply to move it 1/2 a mile up the road. It will be hard to resist that move, who cares which particular field is tarmac-ed over ? Then they will apply to enlarge the site - that will be hard to resist if the application is well drafted and then we get a Dobbies out in the middle of the countryside. This will attract significant traffic and completely over turn the traffic forecasts upon which the Bypass was designed - it may well simply drive traffic straight back into Alderley Edge. It will certainly overload Monk's Heath lights which are at capacity already. And worst of all, once you have permission for a large retail outlet adjacent to the Bypass it becomes impossible to resist further applications. Dobbies cannot plead the special circumstances that Matthews could - so that reason for resisting further applications disappears. In 20 years time we would have an entire retail park alongside the Bypass.

There are many sites that the Council would be perfectly willing to grant permission for Dobbies to use. There is lots of land adjacent to Handforth Dean that is scheduled for Development where permission would be granted easily. The problem is that Dobbies is owned by Tesco. They have a track record of converting failing Dobbies into Tesco Stores, a relatively local example is Haslingdon, between Manchester and Burnley. They could not convert a failing Dobbies on Handforth Dean into a Tesco because they are already there.

So - its not a matter of just the Matthews' permission, there are wheels within wheels here. The main thing is that most people do not want to see the open country randomly converted into retail parks and that is what this application is really about. The Bypass is only designed to carry the existing traffic away from Alderley - lets not lose all the gains that were obtained after obtained for the village after such a long fight and at such a great cost. The inspector should agree with the Council - the special reasons that lead to the granting of the Matthews permission have long since gone. The permission has died through lack of use, it should be left that way.
Frank Keegan Sunday, 18th Sep, 2011 8:37 pm
Maryanne,

The original planning permission to Matthews was an attempt to preserve jobs in that area; however, the permission was never taken up and the businesses survived in a different location.

Opposition is not about keeping jobs out, but about keeping traffic out. There are other sites more suited to large volume traffic, and keep this site (and the whole area) less polluted with traffic.

When you talk about companies paying high taxes, I am pretty certain that TESCO (ultimate owners of Dobbies) have pretty tax efficient operations, so that they do not contribute HIGH TAXES.

Which means the local taxpayer and the national taxpayer are subsidising such companies, so that they can use the infrastructure paid for by ordinary taxpayers.

You could probably construct an argument that, all things taken together, the infrastructure provided for these companies is not recovered in national corporation tax.
Mike Norbury Monday, 19th Sep, 2011 12:29 am
ok let me put this another way then ... im not against companys making profits etc what annoys me so much is the scant regard given to the surrounding remaining greenbelt open countryside with regard to this proposal when within 5 miles of that proposed site there are brown field sites (or whatever they are refered to as) that could be re used for this type of developement but probably do not hold the same portfolio cudos as does a site in or around alderley edge. im probably biased and over sentimental about the countryside i know and love.
Latest News
Related News