Plans to build six houses on land gifted to RSPCA resubmitted

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.

Heyes Lane, Planning Applications


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

David Carey
Monday 20th December 2021 at 9:33 am
Here we go again!
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!
Alan Brough
Monday 20th December 2021 at 12:57 pm
One thing that has changed since the original application is that Heyes Lane has been removed from the "Winter Service" programme which (logic dictates) make it more dangerous and less suitable for further development such as is proposed here.

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.
David Carey
Monday 20th December 2021 at 4:52 pm
I wonder why this has been re-submitted just prior to Christmas?
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....
Alan Brough
Monday 20th December 2021 at 6:17 pm
@ David Carey,

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?
Stuart Redgard
Monday 20th December 2021 at 10:18 pm
#David Carey

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."
David Carey
Tuesday 21st December 2021 at 9:28 am
#Alan Not sure there is any Christmas goodwill around when it comes to planning and making money building houses, I would like to think so, there is certainly an element of Ebenezer Scrooge about all of this, no prizes for guessing who is Ebenezer....
#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!
Terry Roeves
Tuesday 21st December 2021 at 4:00 pm
Given the housing density around this site, wouldn’t AE be better served by a green lung park there? As a refuge for wild life surely that would be a far better use, much more in keeping with RSPCA aspirations.
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.
Fiona Braybrooke
Tuesday 21st December 2021 at 6:30 pm
It would seem that they don’t want to except the word No
Andy Brown
Wednesday 22nd December 2021 at 9:59 am
Groundhog day.
John Hardman
Friday 24th December 2021 at 7:56 am
I completely agree with all the comments made, over development of space, greed, access etc. But more importantly, wasn’t this land left to the RSPCA . Wasn’t it given to them in trust that it would be left as open wildlife space. I might be behind the curve on this, also totally wrong so please correct me. However, shouldn’t this be shouted from the tree tops. It certainly would put me off leaving anything to the RSPCA. If all they are going to do is completely ignore my bequest. As previously mentioned if I’m wrong and they can do whatever they want. I apologise for my rant.
Alan Brough
Friday 24th December 2021 at 11:04 am
@John Hardman,
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.
David Carey
Friday 24th December 2021 at 12:00 pm
John no need to apologise you are spot on. The RSPCA were given the land for wildlife but they sold it without thought as to what would happen, and they are culpable for this mess. And as an animal lover I will not be quick to leave them anything in my will either....
John Hardman
Friday 24th December 2021 at 12:55 pm
Thank you for your clarity, in replying. Should this not be escalated to the national press. We should shame the RSPCA into rescinding their application. They might think twice if it was plastered across the newspapers.
David Carey
Friday 7th January 2022 at 12:20 pm
Just a quick reminder for people who would like to object to this planning proposal that the last submission date is the 12th January. The revised plans can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council website by searching for planning reference 21/5812M
Debbie Scott
Monday 10th January 2022 at 1:59 pm
Please please help us stop this planning application, objections need to be submitted by noon on 12th January.
Thank you
Alan Brough
Tuesday 11th January 2022 at 8:06 am
Previous applications have been refused but only after considerable wrangling and this latest submission whilst largely the same as before, will challenge the reasons for refusal.

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.
Marcus Holt
Tuesday 11th January 2022 at 7:33 pm
As a Heyes lane resident I have added my objection to the council and I had hoped to attend the recent parish plans meeting which I understand others did and raised plenty of objections which the parish council agreed with.

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.