Developer sent back to the drawing board

Screen Shot 2017-03-20 at 14.39.00

A developer is being requested to amend their designs for a residential scheme located south of Coppice Way in Handforth.

Jones Homes were granted planning permission for a development of up to 175 dwellings in April 2016, however their application (planning reference 15/0795M) which sought reserved matters approval for layout, scale and appearance was deferred by the Northern Planning Committee earlier this month.

Despite being recommended for approval by the Planning Officer, committee members voted unanimously to defer the application to enable officers to go back to the applicant and ask for the designs to be amended.

Councillor Craig Browne explained "In particular, members expressed concerns over the lack of access to public open space, as well as the manner in which affordable homes had been clustered in certain parts of the development, rather than being spread evenly across the site."

He added "I also expressed concerns about the provision of just a single point of access/egress to the site, via the A34 at Handforth Dean and the lack of any direct vehicular access to the centre of Handforth. This will, I believe, have the effect of creating a separate community that is geographically isolated from the rest of Handforth, whilst I was also concerned about the ability of emergency vehicles to access the proposed development at busy times."

A spokesperson for Jones Homes said "We were surprised by the decision and are reviewing our options."

Three objections were received to the revised plans, issues raised included: properties on elevated ground resulting in loss of privacy, drainage concerns, impact on public of right of way, too many houses and increased traffic.

The Planning Officer's report stated "The proposed scheme provides an acceptable design and layout, the dwellings are appropriate to the character of the area, sufficient open space is provided in the development and landscaping is reserved for subsequent approval. It is considered that the development would not have a detrimental impact upon neighbouring amenity, ecology (subject to clarification on the ecological buffer), trees, or highway safety."

The plans can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council website by searching for planning reference 15/0795M.

Coppice Way, Jones Homes, Planning Applications


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

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 at 6:31 pm
I attended this planning meeting. I was particularly interested in that the Councillors were concerned that affordable housing had not been spread over the whole site. Many residents from Wilmslow will remember that one of our objections to the Adlington Road site was exactly the same, - namely, that affordable housing was clustered in only two areas and not spread out. Immediately after the Handforth application outlined above, came up the plans to make smaller the affordable bungalows on one part of the site on Adlington Road. The representative for Jones Homes explained that the wider site on Adlington Road had already been accepted and that "affordable housing was spread across the whole site". It was all I could do to contain my guffaws.
Simon Poucher
Wednesday 22nd March 2017 at 10:17 pm
As a neighbour of the site there are several aspects of this development that concern me. Not least is the drainage plan for the site. It was stated at the CEC North planning meeting that the Flood Risk Manager has stated that there is no flood risk. However the modelling used to make these assessments are based upon average rainfalls + 30% for potential sites and not the peak recorded rainfall that is experienced in the area. We all know that flooding occurs when it rains at its heaviest.

The foul water outflow pipe diameter is only 150mm. This is the minimum required for a development of 10 houses or more. I am no expert, but this seems a low capacity to cope with the effluent from 175 houses.

Finally, the gradient of these foul water pipes is stated as 1:150, the minimum required for foul water pipes of these size. Yet they run parallel with the surface water pipes which are at a gradient around 1:400 all the way to the outflow site on Hall Road. This means that at the exit, the foul pipe will have to be over 2.5 times deeper than the surface water pipe. I would expect that will make it challenging to get both foul and surface water to enter the Hall Road system.

If an engineer reading this would offer an expert opinion I would be grateful.
Ryan Dance
Wednesday 22nd March 2017 at 11:18 pm
Jackie - What exactly is the concern regarding the affordable housing? You clearly have studied the impact of spreading affordable house across a relatively small estate rather than a clustering approach? You have evidence in the longitudinal economic and social impact of such an approach? Can you direct me the academic paper on this matter? I look forward to reading such an authoritative paper. Perhaps you just don't want the development?
Roger Bagguley
Thursday 23rd March 2017 at 9:42 am
This is a very significant decision which Independent Councillor Craig Browne has articulated well. If it is the case the Local Plan will remove from the Green Belt large sites for development, despite massive opposition and despite not needing to do so in order to meet the housing need, it is now very important that planning applications are challenged to address all of the guidelines that will enhance the quality of life on these estates and the quality of life for existing members of communities too.

Ryan: Check out NPPF re "Pepper Potting."
Thursday 23rd March 2017 at 11:58 am
Ryan - for starters try looking here at Interim Planning Statement

In particular section 4.8.

You might also want to look at another area. - try basingstoke - they have an SPD on affordable housing on new developments.

As to evidence of such an approach - try this - a resource base for architects.

or this

The HBF has also conducted its own research.
Ryan Dance
Thursday 23rd March 2017 at 8:15 pm
Jackie. Thanks. These are policies. To be frank it's just another angle used to stop or curtail development. I forgot..we don't have a housing shortage do we. Surely not.
Simon Worthington
Friday 24th March 2017 at 7:45 am
Rather than a housing shortage we just have too many people. There is no problem with affordable housing, it just isn't where those who can't afford what is available wish to live. The harsh reality of life. Move to where you can afford.
Friday 24th March 2017 at 10:10 am
Ryan - there was a worse housing shortage at the end of the 2nd World War, but the government was determined that the slum conditions perpetuated by grasping landowners should end and brought in guidelines for housing. On your scenario we would be heading back in time. I am not opposed to development - a) in the right place - namely brownfield where available and b) housing of the right quality for all. That means having adequate space for all, preferably more than 1 entry and exit in case of emergency and a design which doesn't penalise people for living in "affordable housing".
Ryan Dance
Friday 24th March 2017 at 11:12 am
well done Simon. You keep me entertained if nothing else.

Jackie - ill pay you some credit - you at least consistent with your message. I just wish you would stop trying to use (badly) to voice concerns about developments.

You have opposed almost every development highlighted on here. adlington...woodford.....chapelwood.....conversions.....handforth dean the list is endless. The building height.....the traffic.....the loss of greenery...exit roads...entry roads.....drainage places......affordable housing...brownfield sites... quality of housing...flat roofs...pepper sizes....pitched roofs all cited as reasons

I could go on. Just be upfront about your motives. No development anywhere.
Friday 24th March 2017 at 12:24 pm
So Ryan having lost your point you now resort to an ad hominem attack.

For the record, there have been a number of brownfield sites to which I have not objected, - but then don't let spoil your rhetoric.
Ryan Dance
Friday 24th March 2017 at 12:55 pm
Jackie - firstly. It is not an attack. an attack. Perhaps i should just agree with your wonderfully written posts. The points above are indeed correct - i took them from your own posts and our exchanges. You did indeed complain about the building height at Capelwood. You did indeed complain the flat roofing design at handforth dean etc

im not sure what point I've lost? its discussion. Not a race to finish the line. You offered a plethora of policies, I offered my thanks. They are indeed policies. But thanks anyhow.

My point is Jackie - i for sure see past your eloquent and intellectual posts....reams and reams of words....resource links.......conspiracy theories... your authoritative stance on modern architectural design......s106 policy.....planning and policy contraventions. They are wonderfully articulated. They all end with the same conclusion.
Simon Worthington
Friday 24th March 2017 at 1:03 pm
Glad to entertain someone!! Although I struggle to find entertainment in facts about too many people and the suggestion of living within ones means but it takes...........
Friday 24th March 2017 at 2:41 pm
Ryan - from your post,

" I just wish you would stop trying to use (badly) to voice concerns about developments". The use of the word, "badly" is an ad hominen attack. You are now trying to excuse yourself from this by the use of "eloquent and intellectual etc" in your most recent post. None of this does you any credit.

Your choice of examples is selective and you conclude with, "they all end with the same conclusion". I would point you to the development of the Ned Yates Garden Centre. Use of a brownfield site, good design, and with bungalows to cater for all ages, a development proposal supported.

Finally, I did not offer "a plethora of policies". If you had taken the trouble to read them you will seen that the first was Cheshire East's own policy, and I gave you an alternative to compare. The rest was "research evidence" or as you put it, "the longitudinal social and economic impact".

I doubt that this conversation can be fruitfully continued.
Ryan Dance
Friday 24th March 2017 at 3:40 pm
Jackie - I have no wish to copy paste your comments or indeed many of your previous contributions.

1) I have no need to excuse myself. There is no teacher...student relationship here. We disagree on most subjects.
2) My choices are not selective. They are factually correct. Go back and check your previous posts. They display a very clear level of opposition. My view stands - that your views are driven by the NIMBY mindset. Don't take offence by this comment. You are in good company here....plenty of the anti-anything mob on this site.
3) As I've said before - they are polices. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You are indeed correct. It cannot be continued for fear of boring the other contributors.
Sandra Cox
Friday 24th March 2017 at 4:37 pm
Rather rich isn't it Ryan to criticize Jackie when your attitude never wavers from 'build, build, build anywhere'.
Ryan Dance
Friday 24th March 2017 at 5:13 pm
Sandra - When have i ever said build anywhere? please direct me to this post. This is news to me.

I think you will find Sandra that my views on development and economic growth are progressive. I accept the need for change...i accept that everything cannot remain as it is or was...... the world has changed beyond recognition over the last 50 years. Even our cosy little green villages and towns need to change. I champion change. I'm pro development.

If you don't like my view this is tough! I'm here to stay. Ill continue to offer a view which differs to the vociferous...venomous......anti development mob.

When you find my post that supports "build, build, build anywhere"- lets engage and discuss. Have a read through all of my posts.
Jon Armstrong
Friday 24th March 2017 at 5:21 pm
I have some sympathy for Ryan's position here.

Whilst I'm certainly not "build build build", I recognise development is necessary. I believe brownfield sites should be developed first, as many others on here also claim to.

However, time and time again on here, when almost every proposed brownfield development is met by all kinds of objections of the most trivial in nature or which are founded on logic that doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny, you really have to start to wonder exactly whether there is actually ANY kind of development of which they would approve.

I think some just wish the pause button could have been pressed on Wilmslow some time in the 1960s or whenever their period of choice is. It has always changed and always will.
Sandra Cox
Friday 24th March 2017 at 5:24 pm
So you deny your attitude is to build everywhere. I have never read any post from you that was against any proposed development or suggested you had reservations. Are there any?
Roger Bagguley
Friday 24th March 2017 at 7:38 pm
Ryan. It is becoming more and more apparent you will get your growth and perhaps some radical changes as this Local Plan plays out. The point consistently being made is that far too much land is being taken from the Green Belt in the current round. Surely you agree planning for growth should be based upon accurately applied growth data and not upon a guess with a very large margin just in case you get it wrong. Having largely lost the Green Belt issue it is no surprise Jackie and many others now seek to bring some quality and diversity to developments in Wilmslow through having policies applied.

On another point walkways, cycleways and public open spaces are high on the CEC agenda in planning for the future. I hope you will join with the Jackies of this world in celebrating this but more importantly in making sure they deliver ob this policy.