‘Cramped’ 42-home plans are rejected
CHESHIRE East Council has refused plans for a ‘cramped’ 42-home scheme in Macclesfield on the grounds of over-development.
Morris Homes and the trustees of the Lyme Green Settlement had applied for full planning permission for the development on land off Gaw End Lane.
The application has previously been deferred because of concerns including a lack of play area and open space as well overdevelopment.
And at a meeting Wednesday, October 26, the planning board unanimously refused the scheme.
Councillor Stewart Gardiner described the apartments proposed in it as ‘back-to back’ and a backward step.
He asked the applicants’ agent, Jonathan Ainley, why the developer had not amended the layout when councillors had previously made it clear they felt there was too much building relative to open space.
Mr Ainley said: “It’s a viability point to a degree, in terms of the scheme needing to work and be deliverable for Morris and to work for the trustees.”
Coun Gardiner continued: “If you reduce the number of large houses on this site you will then have enough space to do all the other things you need to do to create a good quality scheme.”
During the meeting, several councillors raised concerns about the lack of a play area on site.
They were particularly concerned that, if children used the play area in Sutton, they would have to cross the busy London Road.
Mr Ainley said the proposed development was adjacent to the much larger Vistry Homes scheme which does contain a play space and there would be connections through to that site.
Earlier in the meeting ward Andrew Gregory, speaking as a visiting councillor, had told the board there were issues in relation to the boundary of the site.
He said the owner of Rayswood Nature Reserve claims the existing boundary, as suggested by the plans and by Morris Homes, is actually on the Rayswood land.
Coun Gregory said: “That’s really important because that’s where the drainage ditch is.”
Macclesfield councillor Brian Puddicombe said he couldn’t support the application because he had concerns about highways issues and over-development.
The application was refused unanimously on the grounds it would result in a cramped form of development which would undermine the visual amenity and landscaped area.