Plans to build six dwellings on a vacant infill site situated off Heyes Lane, left to the RSPCA by a wild life enthusiast., have been resubmitted.
Deanbank Investments were refused planning permission in November 2020 to build two rows of three houses. (Planning application reference 19/0684M).
An appeal was dismissed in June 2021 with the main issues being the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the effect on pedestrian safety.
The proposal called for a stretch of Heyes Lane to be moved to create a larger junction to access the site. This would result in the loss of the green verges in that area with the only remaining grass verge being the one outside the Emmerson offices.
The Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal concluding "Although the development would not present a risk to pedestrian safety, it would harm the character and appearance of the area. It is considered that the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and the material considerations above do not indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan."
The resubmitted application to build six houses each with 4-bedrooms, one of which will be located in the loft space, and two parking spaces states
"The previous planning application was dismissed at appeal. The reason for the dismissal was that the loss of the grass verge on Heyes Lane would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. This application therefore addresses this reason, by no longer proposing to remove any grass verge area."
Deanbank Investments were previously refused 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 revised plans can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council website by searching for planning reference 21/5812M.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Not a lot has changed has it, it will still be overdevelopment of such a small area of land and with six houses of four bedrooms.
They havent addressed the other major concern of cars coming in and out of the tiny track and turning space onto Heyes Lane. This was the initail reason why they wanted the verges taken away so access would be easier, so access is still a problem isnt it!
As I understand it Deanbank Investments are a subsidiary or sister company of Emerson Developments. The application could be considered "unneighbourley" given their close proximity to those who have made well-founded and repeated objections to this application.
Could it be so it could sneak in under tha radar whilst we are all getting ready for the festive season or is it me being cynical yet again?
So if you do want to comment on this planning application the closing date is 12th January and as previousl applications go the residents of Alderley certainly know how to comment....
Perhaps Peter Jones will have visitations from Spirits of Christmases past, present and future and look out from his office window on Christmas Eve at the happy smiling faces of the local folk and instruct his Developers to shelve their plans and instead nip down to Grantham’s and buy the biggest Turkey in the window for the local Cratchit family?
Yes! Here we go again
The previous application was refused on two grounds.
1. Insufficient pedestrian access would exist and the proposal would therefore be contrary to saved Policy DC6 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan and Policies SE1 and CO1 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy.
2. The proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of the site which would undermine the visual amenity of the area contrary to Policies SE1 and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, saved Policy DC41 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan.
The applicant appealed and the planning inspectorate made the following decision.
1) The development would not present a risk to pedestrian safety, but it would harm the character and appearance of the area.
As such a precedent has been set. What the developer needs to do is to demonstrate how they have overcome this issue of "how it would no longer harm the character of the area".
That's all they have to do. If the CEC planners believe that they have done this then they will recommend it for approval.
What is required is for the application to be 'called in" by the ward councilor so that the decision can be made by one of the council's planning committees (ie councilors) rather than a planning officer under "devolved powers". That's what happened last time when the planning officer recommended it for approval, but the councilors on the planning committee disagreed with the recommendation and refused planning consent.
I would be surprised if Craig Browne doesn't ask for this to be "called in" again as it is my understanding that he did so previously.
The applicant is doing what "planning law allows".
You could say that "It's a game of attrition."
#Stuart Thank you for giving us the reasons and explanation why it was refused last time and the sequence of events, and yes it does need to be 'called in again' rather than the planning officer who got is so badly wrong last time anyway!
Still, let the developer concrete pour concrete and tarmac, stealing even more of our carbon capture. Shocking example of greed without any care for our planet.
Planners - Cllrs just say NO and stop it.
You are quite right. The land was bequeathed to the RSPCA by David Browne with the expressed wish that it be kept as a haven for wildlife, flora and fauna.
As I understand it, the RSPCA misinterpreted his wishes and argued that by selling the land they could use the proceeds to help more animals.
I personally would not donate a single penny to the RSPCA as a direct consequence of this matter. Others may see it differently.
Thank you
If you look at the Transport Plan submitted by Deanbank / Emerson's consultant (document titled CBO-0692-003 TN Final 071221) you will see the basis of their argument which largely hinges on the access via the junction with Heyes Lane.
Any further comments in support or objection have to be submitted by noon tomorrow.
I think appealing to the RSPCA is futile, its been ruled they can allow the land to be used and so they have really washed thier hands of it and in reality they don't care about a few lines in a paper about this or the loss of a few donations.
From what I see in this new application cover letter they say alot about how they have now complied with xxx but don't actually say how they have complied in any great detail, let's hope we get this rejected as well.