Cheshire East Council Strategic Planning Board has considered proposals from Alderley Edge based company Orbit Developments to regenerate old warehousing and an area of land which has been vacant since a Public Planning enquiry 18 years ago. The site adjacent to the Handforth Dean Shopping Centre which includes M & S, Tesco and Outfit.
New retail units would be a continuation of the existing shopping frontage from BHS to Pets at Home offices and compliment the retail offer already in the area with the new NEXT store under construction opposite the proposed buildings.
Up to 200 new jobs would be created by the new stores many of which local, as well as construction jobs and the wider investment in the area. There are previously approved plans to demolish the old warehousing and to construct offices, however despite 10 years of marketing and the speculative construction of an office building on nearby Epsom Avenue (which has remained empty for the last 8 years) there has been little interest and no occupiers.
A planning application was therefore submitted to enable the site to be brought into beneficial and productive employment use, supported by Handforth Parish Council.
Despite these circumstances, Cheshire East Council has refused the application solely based upon the Council Officers recommendation regarding 'Employment Land Policy' which seeks to retain the land for what might be described as more traditional uses of office, industrial, storage and warehousing.
This fails to recognise that in these diverse times jobs come in many forms. The policy protects a site where there is both a proven unrealistic prospect of these types of future jobs in buildings which would also be incompatible with the present and future retail surroundings. Policy is guidance and not mandatory, jobs are jobs and delivering real jobs the priority.
There are 7 people currently employed on the site who could either relocate or be provided with alternative job opportunities by the Emerson Group on adjacent areas of Earl Road, as well the new proposed retail scheme providing up to 200 new jobs, thereby protecting existing employees.
This is a modest retail scheme with limited loss of designated land and is located in a new retail environment. Section 106 contributions to training and investment in employment over and above those jobs created by proposed development, together with payments for local highways/footpath/lighting improvements, recreation, open green spaces and community projects in excess of £600,000 were also offered and declined.
It seems incomprehensible that a Policy designed for the economic benefit and growth in the area should restrict investment and the creation of jobs. Orbit are currently considering options for an appropriate way forward.
Mark Royle, Director, Orbit Developments.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
There is no plan for significant (as opposed to token) open spaces (no profit in those is there) to preserve a rural edifice to the northern boundary with GMC. It's all under pressure with what is now happening in and around Woodford, Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme, Heald Green and Handforth. Much of the largely rural land in this area of the northern arc of Wilmslow was acquired in a time of the extreme urgency bought about by WW2. Once that need receded restitution, not reconstitution, should be the guideline not a free-for-all land grab.
To quote some of our largest commercial operations touting for trade "once it's gone it's gone" - is that how we want it to be, bargain time for spivs and shysters who really couldn't care less.
In the news last week it was claimed that a third of those currently employed in retail will have lost their jobs in the next decade due to the decline in retail shops.
Around 18-24 months ago I repeatedly attempted, but failed, to elicit information from CEC as to why this land could not be designated for housing in line with this "Brownfield First" Policy. After all CEC's own documents claim it is suitable and available and deliver 150+ houses.
No doubt some would say "Who would want to live there?"
Similarly I would ask who is going to want to live in the North Cheshire Growth Village directly opposite - bordered on two sides by the A34 and A555 - IF it is taken out of the Green Belt following the Examination with the Inspector later in the year.
Engine of the North, the Councils property development company, is holding a one day public consultation event next Tuesday (8th March) at Total Fitness.
Their aim is to consult with residents on their views of what they would like to see incorporated in the unfolding "vision" for the new settlement. How can it become (and I quote) "a healthy, sustainable and green garden village"?
With great difficulty I would have thought given its location.
This seems a better use for the site than what is there now.
As to the idea of the Handforth Growth Village the contamination reports on that area should prove interesting given its previous use and given the historic landfill sites there. Seems to me that the best thing for this area is to green it over as parkland for the residents of both Stockport and Cheshire East to enjoy.
Interestingly the reports for the Handforth East housing site have been made available after an FoI request. Some information appears to have been withheld (allegedly until the Local Plan is out for consultation). However the emails indicate that there is radioactive contamination present in the soil at that site about which Cheshire East Council had concerns.
http://bit.ly/1RriukE
The planning application for this site also states that a radioactive contamination report was submitted but doesn't appear in the list of submitted documents.
http://bit.ly/1oR2W2z
interesting...
In truth it stood largely unoccupied for a decade until existing businesses could be lured to Lyme Green with attractive deals. Car showrooms were the main benefactors.
Hence Macclesfield lost another open space to a development for which there was no demand.
A very similar argument is currently being used to develop greenbelt land to provide 'affordable homes' that will never be built.
That is not really on any developer's agenda.
These range from the small to the large and the old to the new. It may seem like a lot to a casual observer, but in reality is only around 20% vacancy. This vacancy rate is consistent throughout the whole South Manchester office market which comprises some 12.85M sqft.
If all offices were let at all times, ie 0% vacancy, then rents would spiral upwards. As it is there is a currently a healthy balance between supply and demand.