Crunch meeting over controversial homes
ACONTROVERSIAL planning application for 12 new homes is set to be discussed at a council planning meeting today (Wednesday) after town councillors and neighbours raised a variety of objections.
Developers MSB Developments are proposing to build two new terraced blocks housing 12 family homes with 2, 4 and 5 bedrooms, accompanied by associated gardens, parking and garages, on the former site of the Stanley Press Equipment industrial unit on Bank Street, Macclesfield.
One of the new builds is to face a new access road to be laid between the two buildings, with its rear facing the neighbouring Knight’s Pool, while the second will face the existing Greenhills Close cul de sac with the new access road to the rear.
First submitted to Cheshire East Council in March 2019, the plans for the development have already been through one set of amendments, and are now on the agenda for the meeting of the council’s Northern Planning Committee.
The council says the plans would provide new housing in a ‘modern, but locally distinctive design’ and in a sustainable location, and that the development raises no significant highway safety, ecological or flood risk concerns, nor any significant impact on the living conditions of neighbours.
However Macclesfield Town Council has raised a number of objections, including that the development includes no provision for affordable housing, and the proposed site is at a medium risk from surface water flooding.
Councillors also say there is insufficient parking provision for the development, object to the inclusion of charging points for electric vehicles in the plans, and will request a condition requiring a flood survey and management plan for the site in the event of approval.
The application has been called to the committee by ward representative Coun Mick Warren, who said: “The development proposal would represent overdevelopment of what is quite a small compact site.”
Coun Warren added that the proposed new builds would be ‘over-bearing/ out-of-scale or out of character compared to the houses on Greenhills Close and the small terraced houses opposite on Bank Street’.
The development would be surrounded by a variety of other residential properties, ranging from terraced and semi-detached houses to bungalows and threestorey blocks of flats.
Residents in existing properties surrounding the site have also raised a number of concerns, ranging from child safety and increases in traffic levels to objections to some of the design features of the new builds. Many of the concerns raised by residents concerned the three-storey height of the two new buildings, which some residents said they feared would cause a loss of privacy, with neighbours potentially able to look directly into their children’s bedrooms.
Others said the height of the buildings would simply be too tall in relation to neighbouring homes from an aesthetic point of view, with their design not in keeping with that of surrounding properties.
Even after the plans were amended to adjust the spacing of the new buildings, with the number of proposed new homes reduced from 14 to 12, residents said they were still too tightly packed together, and that the plans ought to include trees to replace those that would be lost during construction.
Traffic concerns also featured prominently, with residents fearing an increase in traffic on the Greenhills Close cul de sac, which could be opened up to through traffic by the proposals, and on Bank Street and Swettenham Street, which they claim are both already congested.
Others raised concerns that an increase in onstreet parking would lead to obstruction of the roads, and parents said the increase in general traffic would make it too dangerous for their children to continue playing outside in the neighbourhood, as they do currently.
Macclesfield Civic Society also responded to the consultation on the plans, initially accepting that although it supported the principal of redeveloping the site, the plans were ‘very intense’, with potential for direct overlooking due to the ‘unconventional spacing and orientation’ of the two new proposed buildings.
However, following the submission of amendments to the plans, the Society commented: “The scheme is much improved by the revised submission.
“A more generous spacing between the blocks of dwellings meets our previous concerns.
“The design is well thought out and provides an element of continuity with established building forms in the locality.
“There is potential for a pleasing form of redevelopment.”
The majority of the concerns raised by residents were repeated in comments submitted to the consultation on the amended plans.
East Cheshire Council’s planning committee is recommending the application be approved, pending an agreement ensuring additional contributions of £36,000 for public open space, £11,000 for recreation and outdoor sports, and £54,378 for primary and secondary education.
The council says the development does not seem able to meet its Local Plan Strategy requirement of the provision of 65 square metres per new dwelling for the provision of public open space and recreation and outdoor sport facilities.
Approval of the plans will therefore be conditional on the contribution of commuted sums totalling £47,000, which would be spent on play and amenity enhancements, improvements to Knight’s Pool, the outdoor sports and recreation facilities at King George open space on Windmill Street, and the Brynmore Drive play area.
The development is also expected to create the need for four new school places - two primary and two secondary - in the local area.
To mitigate what it says would be a ‘detrimental impact’ on local education provision as a result of the development, Cheshire East Council has recommended the secured contribution of more than £50,000, without which the authority’s Children’s Services would raise an objection to the application.