People win battle to halt new homes bid

ABID to knock down one home and replace it with eight at the same site have been fought off by existing residents.

Abode Property Development had wanted to build two detached houses and six apartments at Dickens Lane, Poynton.

But Cheshire East planners refused the company’s application after receiving 76 objections against the proposals, which Poynton Town Council were also against.

Numerous complaints included overdevelopment, loss of privacy, the design being out of character with the area and the additional traffic on what is an already busy road used by schoolchildren.

A similar application, with an extra house, was dismissed on appeal last year for largely the same reasons.

One objector said: “The wider issues remain , overdevelopment on a busy road situated on a blind bend used extensively by children of primary school age on their way to school.

“No amount of tinkering with plans alters these fundamental very serious safety issues.”

Another said: “Approval of this development will set a dangerous precedent for the further development of the general area with further pressure on infrastructure and services.”

Reports submitted with the application said other similar developments sub-dividing large plots in Poynton had been approved and delivered successfully.

Plans were for five-bed homes and two-bed apartments with 10 parking spaces. The one house currently on site is four bedroom.

A report submitted with the application said: “The site plan as proposed is set to make better use of the large plot size.

“The resultant design is sympathetic in terms of scale, massing, layout, architectural style and planting.

“It meets the relevant space standards, avoids overlooking and ensures appropriate levels of daylight and sunlight when taking retained trees into account.”

But the council’s northern planning committee refused Abode’s ‘visually dominant’ planning application in line with the recommendation of officers.

A planners report said: “The proposal is for housing which would bring economic and social benefits.

“However, the proposals are not considered to respond well to the character of the area and would harm residential amenity.”