Plan for 57 retirement apartments approved


Plans to demolish two former council office buildings off Chapel Lane and replace them with retirement apartments have been approved.

The Northern Planning Committee voted unanimously in favour of the proposal from PegasusLife to knock down the two existing buildings on the Remenham site and build 57 assisted living apartments. 59 parking spaces will be provided to serve the development.

Cllr Rod Menlove spoke in favour of the application at the meeting on Wednesday, 18th June. He said "26% of our residents are aged 65+ (the national average is 16%) so this is a much needed development that also has the potential to free up housing stock locally.

"I raised concerns around two road safety issues. The first was the poor visibility exiting in to Beddells Lane that could be resolved by less on road parking near the exit. The second was the need to upgrade the visibility of the nearby pedestrian crossing with LED lighting to both the traffic lights and the columns. These were agreed with funding to come from the S106 monies."

Revised plans were submitted earlier this month which reduced the height of the building from 19.7 metres to 16.3 metres and the number of apartments from 65 to 57. The revision also reduced the extent of communal facilities, which now include a dining area, swimming pool, sauna, gym, and studio.

A S106 legal agreement will be required to include £81,750 for the enhancement of public open space facilities at Gravel Lane, Lindow Common, Carnival Fields, The Carrs and allotments within Wilmslow.

The planning application can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council website by searching for planning reference 14/5471M.

Northern Planning Committee, PegasusLife, Planning Applications, Remenham


Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.

Thursday 18th June 2015 at 2:49 pm
Perhaps Councillor Menlove would like to explain why the Council Offices in the heart of Congleton, which are no longer used, are going to be demolished and the space then covered with grass? Wouldn't this have been nice in Wilmslow or at least, the space used for parking? Wilmslow and Congleton have similar age profiles.
Ryan Dance
Thursday 18th June 2015 at 9:50 pm
Jackie ...I thought you wanted this type of housing? You definitely don't favour new so called "executive 4 bedroom plus" developments. You appear to be against any greenbelt advocate development of existing brownfield sites. .... You seem to want affordable housing and appear to want suitable suitable housing for the elderly? You appear to favour of development that compliments from existing infrastructure (we can't possibly build a new road or railway line for fear of damaging a blade of grass) ...but you don't approve of this develoment? I gleaned this from your many posts on

Enlighten me or indeed correct me!
Tony Hughes
Thursday 18th June 2015 at 9:52 pm
I presume this is what is known as a brown field site: Reusing town space? No one appears to want to countenance the use of green field site in their particular bit of paradise, so this sounds like a very good idea that hits more than one bird with the same stone. New life for unused land, new housing for a section of society that really needs it, and some cash back for the council to spend on town improvements.

Keep up the good work, Rod. Not all residents see councillors in a negative light. Most of them work very hard for no remuneration, just for the love of their town. It just be very difficult to continue being positive when so many people are negative.
Pete Taylor
Friday 19th June 2015 at 8:02 am
There were several issues raised by members of the public in the extensive debate before the first planning application and prior to the revised final application. These included access and egress for vehicles, the excessive height of the initial proposal and parking on Beddells Lane. Interesting to see Cllr. Menlove taking credit for all of these amendments.
One major issue which has not been resolved is the on site parking. One space per dwelling, plus two, to cater for staff and visitors simply is not enough in an affluent area like Wilmslow. The original proposal had a fanciful automated underground car park, clearly not realistic; however CEC need to reassess their parking standards for one space per dwelling.
On balance (parking aside) I think this is a good use of Brownfield town-centre land.
Friday 19th June 2015 at 10:05 am
Ryan - I am simply commenting on the double standards which seem to operate accross Cheshire East. If this is a good use of a brownfield site, to provide for the evidenced need in Wilmslow for accomodation for elderly people, then it is hard to understand when there is evidenced need for this in Congleton, why it should be turned into a greenfield site there. Could it be that the profit to be made from the site is greater in Wilmslow than Congleton? If so then that is not the basis which Cheshire East should be operating on.
Simon Worthington
Friday 19th June 2015 at 10:30 am
Whilst it would have made much more sense to have all the town's medical facilities on one site and amalgamate the surgeries still operating in once private dwellings unfortunately those who supply the funds (us) for both health facilities and council offices were not consulted about this. It is confusing that the title is retirement apartments and then referred to as "assisted living apartments" which are quite different. Most occupants of retirement apartments hang on to thier cars for some time wheras fewer residents will in "assisted living apartments" however there will be far more call for parking for those visiting to assist.
Hopefully all the cash the council make from this will not be spent (polite word) on grandiose plans, even those with planning permission - Lyme Green anyone!!!!
Basically its the best of another bad job.
Sally Hoare
Friday 19th June 2015 at 11:14 am
I am still concerned about the lack of parking. As mentioned above there will be a need for support services on site as well as resident and visitor parking. Also, has anything been done to replace the spaces that are there now? Where will these daily parkers go? I`m not against the developement but hope the council are looking to provide more parking for daily town workers to park off road.
Ryan Dance
Friday 19th June 2015 at 12:26 pm
I cannot understand the anti development rhetoric aimed at this development. It is a perfect site for development.

I see the anti development crew are very adept at creating angles to campaign against ANY development!

so far ...l have: -

1) Alleged inconsistent application of planning rules across areas for the purpose of profit maximisation?
2) Parking problems - you don't even know the profile of the buyers? not everyone drives a car?
3) Access, parking and building height - all attempts to delay development of a perfectly suitable development site
4) Desires to amalgamate all healthcare provision into one site - businesses operate under different owners and models. Let me know when you solve this issue across the globe, perhaps you want the economy to be centrally planned?
5) The fact the council may make a profit from the sale - shock ...horror!
Pete Taylor
Friday 19th June 2015 at 4:35 pm
@Ryan Dance: did you participate in any of the preplanning consultation process? Clearly not or you would recall that the profile of prospective purchasers was fairly accurately assessed by the developer and from this they proposed somewhere approaching two car spaces per dwelling. The underground auto- stacking scheme proposed was clearly a nonstarter due to cost and no other option has been able to near the originally proposed number.
Look very carefully at the clever artist's impression provided and you will see that a five story building was proposed. There is no five story building in Wilmslow, it would tower over the adjacent large trees. This has now been reduced to four storeys.
You are correct in saying it is an ideal site for redevelopment but only if that development is sensitive to the surrounding built environment and is fit for purpose.
You are making a name for yourself as Wilmslow's only YIMBY, although Mr Pink may be along in a minute.
Ryan Dance
Friday 19th June 2015 at 5:21 pm
@petetaylor - I wouldn't describe as a YIMBY. I just struggle to understand why such a positive and substantial investment into a prime / ripe development site would attract such negativity. Big deal if the developer makes a profit.

where we differ my view of the world is much more free and open to change. The fact that the proposal was 2 stories, 3 stories or even 4....are insignificant and boarding on plain stupidity in my view.

with regards to prospective purchasers having 2 cars....this is normal isn't it?
Manuel Golding
Friday 19th June 2015 at 5:51 pm
RoW congratulates the Northern Planning Board and Cheshire East Council on approving this development.This is exactly what we have been advocating and urging CE to go for such a usage of this prime brownfield site.
Three years or so ago this was not the case. In discussion with the Council's leader, Cllr Michael Jomes & head of planning, Cllr Jones was then adamant this Remenham would be suitable for 4 or 5 large house. To put it mildly, we were shocked at this strategy. We protested there & then, telling Cllr Jones we wanted to see & believed Remenham was wholly suitable, a multi habitation development here. In the meantime, various local CE councillors followed on with the Cllr Jones strategy.
Further conversations followed between RoW & Cllr Jones & planners until they eventually were persuaded of our strategy.
So once again, congratulations to CEC and all who sail in her.
Jack Pink
Saturday 20th June 2015 at 9:48 am
Shame there isn't a wealth of sites like this in Wilmslow. Would solve some of the problems but not the much needed family housing. I doubt every resident will have the need for a car being so close to the town centre. Cars should probably be taken off older people anyway as, sadly, they cause quite a few accidents.
John Harries
Monday 22nd June 2015 at 10:47 am
I've been a resident for over 60 years.This brownfield site is part of the 'old' Council properties and as far back as I can recall, accommodated a variety of services for and on behalf of the 'local' community. It is now moving into the private domain for who's benefit? There is no mention of providing any so called affordable accommodation within the project, is there no obligation and if not, why?
I've not followed all the recent redevelopment history but where do the proceeds of the sale eventually end up (and at the disposal of whom?). Sad to say it appears to be more of a cash cow rather than a community worthy project so perhaps our local (and recently returned) representatives should think again about what they really are approving before congratulating themselves.
Another community site (in Handforth) is also being sold off for 'necessary' redevelopment. A less grand scheme perhaps than that proposed for Remenham but currently existing (albeit in a mothballed state - why?) as a much more useful local health community facility - a care and respite home. God help local families should they have need of such services in the future (age demographics say demand is clearly increasing) because they will find very convenient resources as close as Congleton (providing those are not oversubscribed) - or looking forward, perhaps Cllr. Jones has plans for such a greenfield site development in Bunbury…don't get me started.
Simon Worthington
Wednesday 24th June 2015 at 4:10 pm
Ryan - I sincerely hope our local health care facilities do not operate under different business models and what has a Wilmslow doctors got to do with the rest of the world!!
I also hope the council ensure that the freeholder of this site ensures that the parking spaces belong to the apartments not, as usual with this sort of development, rented separately.
Peter Davenport
Thursday 25th June 2015 at 1:40 pm
DEar All
One surprising fact at Remenham, is the fact, as it is CE owned, as is the Carrs, that there are Tree Protection Orders on all the trees, most of which are holly, cherry and laurel, are to not be touched, and yet on Adlington Road development at least a dozen trees had TPOs on them, and the Council let them be chopped down willy nilly. Two sets of standards, and I asked 6 months ago why, to the planning department, and to date, neither an acknowledgement or a reply. Such is life, and we are paying for all this!
Dave Cash
Friday 26th June 2015 at 3:17 am
#Peter, I do not dispute Remenham is 'owned' by CEC, or at least the C-Tax payers of Cheshire East, but the Carrs? which was donated to the people of Wilmslow and only administered by CEC with assistance of 'Friends of the Carrs', similar to Lindow Common.
TPO's can be rescinded on correct Application and TPOs should be considered for any planning application, in a report from the rel body.

If CEC owns the Carrs, this slice of greenbelt could be sold to developers, but they would be unlikely to get planning permission for houses, as this low-lying land could be described as a flood plain.

I was not aware that holly bushes qualified for TPO.

Why did the recently felled Cherry trees off Alderley road not have TPOs?
Pete Taylor
Saturday 27th June 2015 at 8:26 am
CEC have sold the Remenham site.
CEC do not own The Carrrs, this land was gifted to the people of Wilmslow.