Major developer objects to plan for two homes But scheme is given go-ahead
ONE of the developers involved in c o n t rov e r s i a l proposals for around 400 homes in Macclesfield has objected to a planning application - for the building of just two houses.
Simon Dart applied for permission to knock down a pumping station off Chelford Road, Henbury, and put up a pair of semi-detached properties.
Cheshire East Council has now approved this but the application attracted a handful of objections, including one from Jones Homes.
This company, along with fellow developer Redrow, is behind one of the three applications for huge development on green belt land between Chelford Road and Whirley Road.
And Jones Homes also has a site adjacent to Mr Dart’s where it has outline planning permission for houses.
In this capacity as a neighbour it lodged an objection to his plans.
Senior planner Tom Loomes said in a letter: “Whilst Jones Homes does not object to the principle of residential development on this site, it does have a number of objections in relation to these latest proposals.
” The applicant’s new proposals show that their properties have moved closer to our boundary than the approved scheme.
“Private garden space will now be significantly overlooked by two properties, which is contrary to Local Plan Strategy policies and Macclesfield Borough Local Plan Policies.”
The letter also states that Mr Dart objected to Jones Homes’s plans, and claims that a proposed driveway encroaches onto ‘land under the control of Jones Homes’. around 30
Jones Homes is currently awaiting the outcome of a reserved matters application for its neighbouring site.
A large volume of concerns over traffic, air pollution, flooding, loss of green belt and pressure on local infrastructure have been raised by residents.
These are similar to the objections to its joint application with Redrow, which is part of the long-running 400 homes planning saga.
Of the three reserved matters planning applications involved, one for 134 homes from Bellway has been approved and another by the same company for 23 homes refused.
Jones and Redrow still await a verdict.
A report by council planners said that Mr Dart’s proposals showed the two houses were sufficiently far away from the Jones site and an amendment had dealt with the driveway issue.