Plans to replace the car repair garage and car showroom on Trafford Road with family houses have been approved.
Russell Homes has been granted planning permission, reference 12/3015M, by Cheshire East Council to demolish the existing premises - which have been home to Alderley Edge Motor Co for approximately forty years and JM Bauer and D Bauer for the past ten years.
They will be replaced with four semi-detached town houses which will be four storey and have four bedrooms.
Cheshire East Council says the plans have been approved because, whilst the points raised in objections have been considered, the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Development Plan and is considered to be acceptable.
The decision notice states: the proposal has an acceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties, the visual impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area is considered to be acceptable and the principle of a housing development in a mixed use area is acceptable in light of the NPPF (National Policy Planning Framework).
A number of conditions have been imposed upon the development, including that all windows and doors be made of wood, the roof of the single-storey part of the buildings cannot be used as a balcony or roof garden, the first floor window on the eastern elevation of plot 4 must be permanently glazed in obscure glass and gates cannot be placed across the driveways.
Alderley Edge Parish Council, who objected to this application on the grounds that 4 bedroom houses should have three parking spaces rather than two, will be discussing the future of Trafford Road Garage at their meeting on Monday, 15th October. The meeting will commence at 7.30pm at the Festival Hall and the full agenda is available here.
A previous planning application, reference 11/2248M, for four town houses was refused in October 2011, on the grounds that the development would result in the loss of a commercial activity which assists in maintaining the economic base and is an important and well supported service to the local community.
It was also stated it "would be a poor and cramped form of development which would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbours and future residents alike."
Another application, registered in July 2003, for the development of nine apartments in a three and a half storey building, with two retail units on the ground floor and basement car parking, was refused.
The approved plans can be viewed on the Cheshire East website by searching for planning reference 12/3015M.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
So what's changed?
Surely, AEPC understands what the local residents need and want more than those Councillors who are not from the Alderley area but yet sit on Cheshire East Council ?
This whole item has become a joke, but I'm sure all the customers of the Bauer Showroom and the Alderley Garage don't think it's a joke, never mind the employees of these businesses, whose livelyhoods are now at risk by this wrong and badly-thought-out decision !
Horrified!!
They keep opening up all these shops etc in Alderley that are really neither use to man nor beast in the normal run of daily life.
One of the only business' that is useful to people in Alderley, from all walks of life is closed on a whim and will only benefit the four people who buy the houses,plus the builders of course.
This is not even taking into acccount the five garage men chucked on the scrap heap.
As Alan says 'what has changed'?
Perhaps you should take a vote Frank and then you will find out what people think.
But Councillor Keegan, I hope you're not still on about building a replacement garage on the Heyes Lane allotments?
Maybe you could have said something when PE Jones built flats on the Wallwork Garage site on London Road, or maybe when more flats were built on the Royles Garage site - but perhaps your tongue was tied regarding those developments?
What does remain unclear is the Parish Council's plan's for the Heyes Lane allotments - perhaps this Mondays Parish Council meeting will provide some answers.
By the landlords own admission, had he not got planning permission he WOULD have given them notice to quit the site with immediate effect, but if he got planning he would give them some breathing space for them to work with the local council with a view to try and relocate.
It is now in the hands of the People of Alderley Edge to shout LOUD & STRONG as to what they want.
Frank, Put me down as No 1.
I was merely pointing out to those who were outraged/annoyed/disappointed by the decision that Jasper Bauer had actually asked the objectors and Council to support the plans.
Regarding the "GUN, LOADED & HEAD" the landlord was hardly quick on the draw!
His intentions have been clear for over 9 years, since the planning application of July 2003.
With regards to asking the people of Alderley Edge to shout LOUD & STRONG can you please clarify what you mean.
Are you asking the people of Alderley Edge to subsidise these businesses by gifting them a large section of the Heyes Lane allotments on which to build a replacement garage?
Isn't it about time those involved disclosed what the plan is - after all the Heyes Lane allotments are public land.
Quick on the draw! Was there not a moratorium on building within that period?
LOUD & STRONG! Just asking for the support of Alderley Edge in any future venture.
Who or where was gift mentioned?
Moratorium or not, clearly the landlord made his intention clear 9 years ago, and any moratorium was never going to last for ever.
Regarding LOUD & STRONG I have no doubt that the vast majority of Alderley Edge residents, myself included, would prefer to see the businesses remain in the village providing a valuable service and providing employment.
Regarding "Who or where was gift mentioned?" well you've got me there. No one has mentioned any gift as those in the know seem to be keeping tight lipped. I was making an assumption in the absence of any answers. Perhaps you can clarify. Are the businesses looking to purchase the land currently occupied by the Heyes Lane allotments?
Maybe it's not wise to make assumptions, and like you I hope we can stay in the village.
To clarify, by referencing Jasper's comment I was making the point that the business owners had asked for people to support the planning application which seemed relevant in the context of previous comments.
Yes it was a rhetorical question, because I am frequently stopped by voters who tell me that the level of service is second to none. In that case, the support needs to be quantified, by people actually standing up and demanding that a service should be maintained in the village. The alternative is that cars would have to be taken to ....where? Wilmslow? Macclesfield?
Why was my tongue tied? The Wallwork site was owned by a private company and they put their site on the market. Every company is entitled to make the most of their assets, and Parish Councils cannot compete in Commercial transactions.
The Allotment sites are public land and will not pass of public ownership. The Festival Hall site is public land, and that will not pass out of public ownership: nonetheless the Parish Council has enabled a Medical Centre to be delivered for public benefit, and it will be at no cost to the local elector.
It is perfectly possible for public land to be used for the greater good, and those who oppose any proposed uses are entitled to voice their opposition - but I don't believe the strident voices of a few should override the vast majority of electors who choose to demand that a valuable local service should be retained locally.
So is the question you are asking "How many people want to keep this fabulous resource in the village?" or "How many people think the Parish Council should help keep this fabulous resource in the village by facilitating its relocation to where the Heyes Lane allotments currently stand?". They are two very different questions which I would imagine would each get a very different response.
It seems very wrong that councillors are actively promoting their destruction and thus we as a community pick up the tab for the development gain made by the landlord of the two businesses concerned.
By all means try and find alternate sites , but on no account destroy a rare and precious green space in the process.
Was there not a garage site in South St that became vacant by the way?