A planning application to replace a single detached house with seven properties has been approved subject to a s106 legal agreement.
PH Property Holdings have been granted permission to demolish Greenlands, a 1930s two storey detached house on Chorley Hall Lane, and replace it with six semi-detached properties and one six-bedroom detached house.
The 0.39ha site is adjacent to the railway line and each property will have a garage and private garden.
Alderley Edge Parish Council and The Edge Association both recommended refusal of the application on the grounds that it is an overdevelopment of the plot.
The application can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council website by searching for planning reference 13/0404M.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
These legal agreements form part of the planning approval and are commonly used to obtain commitments from the developer to provide affordable housing or financial contributions from the developer which, for example, can be used for infrastructure or local facilities such as parks.
For example, Waters Corporation had to pay Cheshire East Council hundreds of thousands of pounds when planning permission was granted for their new headquarters off Altrincham Road - http://bit.ly/1ikPQll
We can't keep letting Cheshire East take our taxes and earning bribes whilst destroying our environment.
Our roads and pavements are in poor condition.
Street lamps are faulty.
No handle on the parking issue.
Little funding for our parks.
I wish the Cheshire East Council would be more transparent and fair with spending the money generated from our community.
I think the current pot of S106 money in Alderley Edge is just under £150,000. Over the last 10 years? Not sure how long St Hilary’s has been up, but it generated about £340,000 as an S106, and that money was duly nicked by MBC.
It was put into a hair brain scheme to provide affordable housing in the countryside, by subsidising the property by about 40%. Such a subsidy means those properties are never going to be affordable.
The development at St Hilary’s was 43 properties and MBC had a policy of 25% affordable properties on site, so we should have had 11 properties at affordable prices. Instead of that, the developers were allowed to pay “a bribe” as somebody said earlier. It was hardly a hardship on the poor developer, who gained 11 extra open market value houses for a mere £30,000 per property.