Permission has been refused for proposed amendments to plans for the development at the junction of London Road and Stevens Street.
Perlada Properties were granted planning permission, at appeal in August 2009, for a two-storey rear extension next door, at 7 Stevens Street, providing a retail unit with offices located above.
In January, revised plans (11/0161M) were submitted for the change of use of part of the ground floor from office to retail and the erection of two-storey and single-storey rear extensions.
Application 11/0161M also incorporates 51 London Road, which was previously occupied by Wine Rack, and includes filling in the archway off Stevens Street to expand the retail area on the ground floor to approximately 295m2. Office space at first floor level would occupy 298m2, with the addition of a roof terrace.
This latest planning application has caused considerable concern amongst local residents, who were particularly worried about access for deliveries, loss of privacy as a result of the proposed roof garden and the removal of the provision for parking spaces when it was felt that a development of this size would normally require 30 car parking spaces.
One local resident said "This application contravenes the spirit and intention of the local plan, and comes into direct conflict with so many planning policies I can hardly believe it's being considered; it is the definition of un-neighbourly in anyone's language."
He also felt that the owner of the building, Perlada Properties, had been "disingenuous in their various applications to do with this property." Adding "At the Parish Council meeting of last week a Council member talked of evidence that the lease was being made available to Pizza Express and a further application for change of use was likely to be made by them as leaseholders.
"Why can the planning department not attribute some reasonable conjecture to what is an obvious commercial ploy when all the evidence and common sense tells you that Perlada are being less than open and honest about their intentions for the site."
The planning application was refused on the grounds that treatment to the Stevens Street elevation is contrary to policies within the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan, which seek to maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area. The proposed rear extension and associated roof terrace were also considered to unduly dominant.
When viewed from the adjoining property the Council said it "would be overbearing, create a sense of enclosure, would cause an unacceptable loss of privacy and result in associated noise that would have a detrimental effect on the residential amenities of the occupiers of that property."
Councillor Keegan said "I see the refusal as a wonderful decision because it was an overdevelopment of the site and relied on the amenities of neighbours. I think a fundamental principle of planning is to be at peace with your neighbours, and this was an intrusion into the facilities of neighbours."
Councillor Lloyd added "I'm relieved at this decision and I absolutely agree with the two reasons cited by the Council for the decision. This is an important Victorian building right in the heart of Alderley Edge and to deface its Stevens Street facade would be a great loss. It was also clear that the proposed scheme would have significantly impinged on the adjoining properties privacy."
The Edge Association did not support the original consent on this site and felt the proposed amendments made the scheme even less acceptable.
Speaking on behalf of the Association, Philip Jobling said "We are pleased that the Council has recognised that the proposed development would have had an unacceptable impact on neighbours and on the village Centre as a whole."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Alderley Edge is fast becoming a shell of empty retail space and lost job potential, and everybody complains local young people can not afford to live around here. Im not surprised, they can not even get jobs around here.
Take a look around at how many empty retail plots there are on the main road compared to just 2 years ago, and I wonder what it will look like in another 2 years?
We don't need the parking review, because at this rate all the retail spaces will be empty (HSBC bank, the jewelers next door, Wine Rack etc etc etc etc etc) And as for the Royal Oak, I hope you will be happy Kate when that shuts down and it has all those lovely steel shutters all over the windows to stop people gaining entry to the building, because then it will be a real eye sore and all that land will be wasted when it could be used for some housing.
Just think of all the building jobs it would create alone while building the houses on that site.
In this time of trouble we need to get the economy moving and creating jobs, not holding things back.
Where sale and resale of development properties take place with an ever increasing value paid against a hope factor that the rentalable area can be increased or other
such down trading of amenity to increase value ( I do not know the details regarding this development ) an eventual position is reached where the developer is left "holding the baby".
With no prospect of a rental/value uplift and the subsequent admission to his Bankers that the proprerty is not worth what has been paid, they have to board up the property, holding onto it until such time as the market place catches up !
The answer is to let it be known in the property market the rules which will ALWAYS be applied, in every case, to development applications. The resulting reduction in the distance between what is allowable and the developers wish list will halt this ruinous "pass the parcel" - and shutters on the High street.
I personally don't like the food all that much but one can scarcely object it's not like they are proposing a Wetherspoons or Smith and Jones Pub - Pizza Express is child and family orientated. The village is hardly overwhelmed with such places.