Plans for residential development on land off Heyes Lane revised again

Another set of revised plans have been submitted for the erection of six houses on a plot of vacant land which was left to the RSPCA by a wild life enthusiast.

Deanbank Investments were declined planning permission in November 2018 to build a row of 8 three-bedroomed terraced houses along with 25 car parking spaces on the land off Heyes Lane.

The initial plans were refused on the grounds that, due to its scale, layout and landscaping, the proposal "would result in a car-dominated, overbearing development of poor design which would result in a strong impression of overdevelopment visible in the surrounding built context".

The planning officer also stated that the proposed development would fail to achieve a satisfactory level of privacy between the proposed dwellings within the site, and between a number of properties along Oakfield Road and Oakfield Close.

A revised scheme for two rows of three houses on the vacant infill site with access to the development off Heyes Lane were submitted in February. Each house had 4 bedrooms, one of which was located in the loft space, and two parking spaces.

These plans which have not been determined generated 50 letters of objection from local residents. Issues raised include: over development, design is not in keeping with surrounding properties, access and visibility is limited when driving out from the proposed development is difficult, lack of affordable housing in the development and the buildings are too high and will result in a loss of amenity and privacy for surrounding residents.

Alderley Edge Parish Council recommended refusal the plans on a number of grounds and requested its call in to planning committee.

They stated "It is an over intensive development and the design of houses not in keeping with the character of its intended location. The massing of the proposal would be overbearing to neighbouring properties in both its height of 3 floors and proximity (a case in example plots along the NW side and neighbouring Oakfield Close). The cited example of precedent of 71 Heyes lane is not in context. There would be loss of amenity to other existing properties in way of access, loss of privacy by overlooking, probable loss of daytime sunlight.

"There is insufficient car parking provision that is not to required CE policy. Provision of amenity space to future occupants seems inadequate, this emphasises the over intensive nature. Access to and from Heyes lane would be a severe concern, the junction is narrow, with limited splay and much needed on street parking further inhibits visibility onto a busy road. There would also be concerns around drainage and water provision and there are numerous rights of way and ownership issues that need to be resolved."

These latest plans are for two rows of three houses, four of which are two storey and the other two are one storey, and they all have a bedroom in the loft space. 15 car parking spaces will be provided.

The plans can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council website by searching for planning reference 19/0684M.

Heyes Lane, Planning Applications


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

Debbie Scott
Friday 21st February 2020 at 4:23 pm
Nightmare, revised plans no better, still overdeveloped, overlooked and out of character.Look at the height of those trees he wants to plant, no light or sun to our houses or gardens! Can't see how 6 houses and spaces for 15 cars could fit on that small plot of land! This application has to be rejected!
Dave Clarke
Friday 21st February 2020 at 4:29 pm
I am not agreeing/disagreeing with the overall plans but to Debbie's point, computer generated visualisations of this nature normally only show planting as a representation of what landscaping could look like. It doesn't mean that the mature trees shown will actually be imported and planted by the developer.
Andrew Greenleaves
Friday 21st February 2020 at 5:41 pm
Should not ever be built. Not only because the land should be left to nature as intended, but the road infrastructure in the area is crumbling, in one of the wealthiest areas in the country you’d expect better, to add to this with more development would just be madness. Cheshire East pull your finger out
Karen Robinson
Friday 21st February 2020 at 11:20 pm
I am a resident of Oakfield close. Over the past few years we have had a number of properties surrounding our close have extensions. Since heavy rain started to fall last August, my garden and my fellow neighbours have been flooded out. Numbers 1-8 on our close are floor boarded downstairs and at this current moment in time I have 7 inches of water under my house and I blame this on over development in our area. We do not need more properties building in this area!!!
Graham McLelland
Saturday 22nd February 2020 at 12:19 pm
1 The infringement on old houses/cottages in that area should not be allowed .Overlooking The buildings ,infringing on their space,and as Karen has said over development.
2 When Bollin field estate was built it was built on vacant land known locally as "THE BOG"because it formed the drainage area from Heyes Lane Davey Lane and beyond.When the estate was laid down extra drainage allowing to water to drain through to the area known as the "Flood Plain" the fields behind Beech Rd ,Beech close took the water.However since more houses have added extentions etc and new buildings have been erected the water table stays full.I used to live on Beech Rd and next door dug a pit inside their garage to work under their car,however the water over night filled that pit.
It is one thing allowing new build and extensions but the Flood Plain is still there.
Tony Haluradivth
Sunday 23rd February 2020 at 9:24 pm
Karen Robinson and others make excellent points. We now need to fight these ridiculous developments as they do in Northern California. Community activists have successfully sued Regional Development groups and planners. My wife's family have lived in the village for over 100 years my late mother in law remembered the bogs and marshy side of Alderley Edge as a child after the 1st World War. This was where water was captured after periods torrential rains. Historical wetlands and flood plains should not be developed. The development above demonstrates the crookedness of the RSPCA who were left the land (to not be developed) by an innocent old man. I will never donate to that cockeyed "charity".
Alan Brough
Monday 2nd March 2020 at 8:44 am
It's like trying to catch "Stealth Bombers" on radar!

A very similar application was turned down for good reason last year and yet they regroup, reconfigure and resubmit.

I knew David Brown. He was a gentle character with a love of animals and, in leaving the land to The RSPCA, it would have been his profound wish that it be preserved as an oasis habitat for wildlife, flora and fauna and that it wouldn't be eaten-up by speculative developers.

Heyes Lane is already overdeveloped and land just walking distance away at Jenny Heyes is already earmarked for housing under The Local Plan.

Parking on and around Heyes Lane already constitutes a danger - I'm particularly thinking of the bends around Belmont Hall / Old Police Station, but the parking around Belmont Terrace can also be difficult to negotiate.

It's also a little ironic that whilst considering development of this already over-populated area, CE Council propose to take Heyes Lane out of the "Winter Service Programme" and stop gritting the road.
Jane Grantham
Saturday 7th March 2020 at 2:53 pm
There is a Parish council meeting on Monday 9th March @ 7.30pm in the Festival Hall to discuss the application - please support us either by attending or posting your objections on CEC planning portal 19/0684M (land off Heyes Lane) by noon on 10th March.