King’s home plan wishlist may save cricket pavilion
AFTER four hours of intense discussion, councillors gave developers a wishlist of improvements for their plans to build 115 homes at the King’s School site in Macclesfield.
It means a cricket pavilion - opened in 1935 to commemorate former King’s pupils killed in the First World War and recognised as a memorial by the Imperial War Museum - could yet be saved.
Hillcrest Homes wants to provide a mix of houses, apartments and a block of retirement flats on the historic site, which will be vacated this summer when King’s moves to Prestbury.
Jon Suckley, representing Hillcrest, told Cheshire East Council’s strategic planning board on Wednesday that the scheme is a ‘truly mixed housing development’ produced as a result of ‘good planning’.
He said: “The development has been sensitively designed and will be very high quality, respecting the listed buildings and existing residential amenities.”
Hillcrest wants to retain the front of the main school building, along with the headmaster’s house and the library, but a number of buildings could be knocked down - including the cricket pavilion.
Mr Suckley was grilled by the committee for more than 50 minutes on the key sticking points for the development, with Hillcrest’s agent insisting the developer had ‘listened and made all reasonable changes’ to limit its adverse impact on neighbouring residents.
He also insisted that Remembrance is ‘important’ to King’s, and that elements from the cricket pavilion would be transferred over to the new school in Prestbury.
But Cllr Fiona Wilson, from Macclesfield Town
Council, emphasised the importance of the pavilion - which was restored in 2001 after former King’s pupils raised £75,000 to refurbish it.
She said: “The developer’s plans to repurpose the pavilion do not make up for the loss of the actual memorial which carried the burden of Remembrance.”
CEC officers had called on councillors to approve the plans, but 125 objections had been lodged against the scheme - including from Macclesfield Civic Society and the town council.
Cllr Lloyd Roberts, independent CEC member for Tytherington, raised concerns about the number of houses proposed and the number of parking spaces being 73 short of the council’s requirement.
He said: “We agree that housing is a suitable option but we are concerned that the density of the current scheme is far too high.”
Another key concern involved the lack of affordable housing - with just five proposed for the site, well below CEC’s 30 per cent requirement.
Cllr James Barber, Labour CEC member for Broken Cross and Upton, said: “Macclesfield does not need more expensive houses that will not be filled.
“It needs affordable homes so that young people can get onto the ladder, and to retain their talent in Macclesfield.”
But planning officer Robert Law told the committee that Hillcrest’s viability assessment - explain why it cannot build 30 per cent affordable homes - had been independently assessed as ‘robust’.
Mr Law added: “We are not dealing with a greenfield site here, we are dealing with an iconic site in Macclesfield that has got a number of competing interests.
“What that has then done is make the scheme have to work very hard in terms of responding to those constraints.
“The result of that is unfortunately there are viability issues on the site.”
Opening the debate, Cllr Stewart Gardiner, Conservative, confirmed he would not be voting to approve the scheme - but warned the committee it might have to temper its expectations.
“I think it is important to remember that the reason why this site is being developed in the way that it is because we have a listed building and the edifice of a listed building being protected,” he said.
“If neither of those buildings were listed there would be nothing preventing this site to be completely flattened and a proposal put forward for 300 homes on the site.”
Cllr Nick Mannion, Labour, added: “It’s a good scheme - but it’s not good enough yet.”
Members agreed to defer making a decision on the plans to allow Hillcrest to change the design of some properties, provide an updated air quality assessment and for the viability assessment to be made publicly available.
Concerns over a public right of way will also be considered, while the possibility developer contributions going towards play provision at West Park will also be explored, and whether some of the homes could be moved to allow the cricket pavilion to be retained.