Centre revamp ‘could damage town’s heritage’
PLANS to revamp an historic part of a town’s centre could have a ‘long-term harmful impact’ on its heritage, according to the council’s conservation officer.
Proposals to redevelop an ‘inextricably linked package of sites’ across Little Underbank, Lower Hillgate and Churchgate in Stockport will go before town hall planners next week.
Described as a ‘residential-led mixed use regeneration scheme of four vacant gap sites,’ it also includes the demolition of ‘unsightly’ derelict buildings in the ‘historic core’ of the town centre.
Part of a multi-million pound regeneration of the area, the project was announced by property firm Hall & Co last year - although the applications have been made under the name ‘Project Iris.’
‘Site E’ at Churchgate is the largest of the four plots and is earmarked for a new ‘mixed use’ building, including 50 apartments and space for new shops.
This would subsidise the delivery of the three other ‘smaller constrained sites’ within Little Underbank and Lower Hillgate.
The authority’s conservation officer says the ‘principle of development’ is to be ‘welcomed’ – particularly the prospect of new homes and commercial units along Little Underbank and Lower Hillgate. However, they stress it is of vital importance that the project ‘supports the preservation and enhancement of the special character and appearance of the conservation areas,’ while avoiding harm to the town centre’s heritage.
In a report to the planning and highways committee the officer warns the scheme – as it stands – could have a damaging impact.
The report reads: “Unfortunately it is considered that the design quality of the submitted proposals falls short of the standards that are being delivered on similar sites within the Market Underbanks and Hillgate Conservation Areas with potential for a long-term harmful impact upon the significance of heritage assets that would be contrary to national and local planning policies.”
It adds: “A standardised development concept and architectural approach has been applied across all four sites without sufficient consideration being given to reflecting local character, identity and variety.”
However, the planning officer’s recommendation to the committee is to grant permission – albeit deferred so the schemes are brought forward in priority order.
The report adds that the conservation officer’s concerns are ‘not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the wider substantial planning benefits associated with the regeneration of four vacant gap sites.’
These include ‘promoting town centre housing and taking up vacant/derelict brownfield land and buildings’ – which is ‘strongly encouraged in the interests of creating a more vibrant and sustainable environment.’
The report also notes ‘Historic England has no objection to the application on heritage grounds.’