Residents in new fight to keep homes off ‘car park’
RESIDENTS once again face a battle to stop houses being built on land they say is designated as a place to park their cars.
Developer Ice Comms has submitted a planning application for two houses at a site of John Street, in Macclesfield.
It follows a similar bid last year for three homes that was refused by Cheshire East Council in the face of objections from neighbours.
The land - described as a ‘privately owned derelict site’ in the plans - sits behind a pedestrianised area of High Street whose residents have used it for access, bin storage and previously as a car park.
Ice Comm’s last application raised questions over the site’s sale by the council in August 2019 - including from ward councillor Ashley Farrall at the meeting at which it was refused.
Now battle lines have been drawn again.
One objector said: “I bought my property December 2020; one of the selling points of this property was that it offered off street parking to the rear of the property that myself (and the rest of my neighbours) can access.
“Building on this land will mean we will no longer have access to parking - as on street parking is already densely populated, and we will be forced to either park in front of someone else’s property or far away from our property which isn’t secure.”
Other arguments raised against the development include more difficult access for emergency services or workmen, loss of privacy and lights, and overcrowding of the area.
But another resident has expressed support, saying:
“The waste land is a major eyesore at present, with weeds and rubbish.
“The street will benefit from the building of these new homes, allowing the street to be more appealing to the eye, and will increase the value of the homes near by.”
The new plans are for two 4-bedroom houses, with a garden and off-road parking for two vehicles per home. A report submitted with the application by ARKHI Architects says Ice Comms met with the council prior to finalising plans and was told residential development was the ‘preferred option’ for the site.
It states the site was formerly used for bin storage and parking and that steps have been taken to minimise overlooking other properties.
But it also contains several photos of the land with vehicles and bins on it.
The report says: “Following a refusal being issued