Decision due on plans to replace care home with 14 apartments

hillside

Plans to demolish a care home, located ta largely residential area to the west of Wilmslow town centre, and replace it with a block of apartments is scheduled to be determined next week.

Jones Homes has applied to demolish the two-storey Hillside Residential Home on Adlington Road and erect of a new 3-storey building containing 14 apartments. Thirteen of which would have 2 bedrooms and one apartment would have 3 bedrooms.

The care home, which has been extended in the past, can accommodate 19 residents, and there is also a single storey outbuilding to the rear.

The proposal includes retaining the existing access, which would be widened, and 28 parking spaces and providing a cycle store on the ground floor of the new building.

Wilmslow Town Council recommended refusal of this application on the grounds of traffic safety with increased traffic on the dangerous bend. Additionally, they stated "The proposed building is overbearing on neighbouring properties and out-of-character being overdevelopment in an otherwise low density residential area. The Town Council believe that the proposals contravene the Supplementary Planning Guidance for Wilmslow Park within which they consider this property to be located."

Amended plans were received during the application period. Forty-two objections were received prior to the amendments with a further 13 objections received afterwards. The main issues raised were: out of character with the road; highway safety issues due to location on a bend; insufficient parking spaces; loss of care home would lead to bed blocking in hospitals; the three stories will be overbearing to neighbouring properties; protected trees would have to be removed; loss of employment from the care home closure and loss of privacy and daylight to surrounding properties.

The Planning Officer is recommending that the Northern Planning Committee refuses the planning application, reference 16/6225M, at their meeting on Wednesday, 14th March because the "economic benefits are somewhat counterbalanced by the loss of the existing employment associated with the care home.

"The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and is out of scale with the surrounding built environment. Whilst the quality of design has improved, it does not reflect the local character and detailing that is found in the neighbouring properties.

"The loss of the protected Beech tree and the potential future pressures on the remaining protected trees due to the proximity of the proposed building is contrary to policy SE5 of the Cheshire East Local Plan and saved policy DC9 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan.

"The relationship of the proposed building to the adjoining property at Lindfield would lead to an unacceptable impact in terms of loss of light and a loss of privacy due to the increase in mass and overlooking windows overlooking this property."

Tags:
Adlington Road, Hillside Residential Home, Planning Applications
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

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

DELETED ACCOUNT
Wednesday 7th March 2018 at 4:37 pm
This is the dangerous bend which crashmap tells us there are no accidents. Strange that, since many a week there is debris from cars. Only a few days ago there was the remains of a car number plate. Gone now - so I suspect that Councillors either had a visit or one is planned.
Steve 'Buck' Taylor
Wednesday 7th March 2018 at 5:44 pm
Jones homes will not be worried about all the problems put up by the Planning Officer, They will probably get their way and still no sign of affordable housing or even offering up a couple of their flats to social housing, heaven's forbid if we have people less fortunate than others moving into this area. As said a couple of years ago when an Aston Martin was found abandoned in a ditch up on Macclesfield Road 'we must keep up the standards" although said jokingly a lot of truth behind the statement. Sadly this is what we are up against in this area.
Desmond Williams
Wednesday 7th March 2018 at 7:36 pm
I hope that the Council will hold to the recommendation of refusal for this totally unacceptable
development which is typical of a speculative developer seizing any pieces of building or land however anti environmental it might be.Please hold to this positive rejection.
Desmond Williams .
Terry Roeves
Wednesday 7th March 2018 at 7:37 pm
To lose a Care Home when there is a crisis with Bed Blocking in NHS Hospitals? Really?
Care beds are needed and let us hope that CEC decisions confirm that. Also that they are prepared to pay a fair daily rate for those who cannot manage at home.
Some councils are buying care homes simply because the costs of short term care per week is lower than the alternatives.
Don’t we need more beds and not fewer?
Buster Wild
Wednesday 7th March 2018 at 9:16 pm
Thanks Buck, I wondered where I'd left my Aston Martin.
Jon Newell
Thursday 8th March 2018 at 7:58 am
This is an interesting one - both WTC and the Cheshire East Planning Officer are recommending rejection. I am not naive enough to assume that this is the end of the redevelopment but I would comment on the continuance of the nursing home.
As a retired Insolvency practitioner who worked extensively in the nursing home sector, I know that a 19 bed facility is almost certainly uneconomic. The combination of increasing minimum wages and enhanced care standards (both of which are completely and absolutely appropriate) mean a home of this size can not make money.
Therefore, rejection means we will be left with an empty building with no possible future use.
There is an answer.
We will get an amended development plan but with reduced density that is sensible and takes into account the location, road access, bin removal, protected trees etc.
Why do we play this game so often? It is such a waste of resource.
Developers should be encouraged to come up with sustainable plans at the first attempt. The fees for repeat applications should be increased by a multiplier for successive applications.
Alan Brough
Thursday 8th March 2018 at 8:59 am
Jon Newell - Could there be another answer?

If a 19 bed facility is uneconomic, and there is a clear and pressing need for more care beds in the immediate area, could development be allowed to facilitate the expansion of the current business?

That way we actually develop something that's needed to serve the community rather than something that further eats away at local services.

Just a thought.
DELETED ACCOUNT
Thursday 8th March 2018 at 10:44 am
Another option is, of course, that it returns to being a private home set in extensive gardens. This is what it originally was. Many of the large houses are still there on Adlington Road and have families which live in them. Why should this be any different? It doesn't need to operate as a business.
Barry Stafford
Thursday 8th March 2018 at 1:29 pm
Yet another Jones development,only just built large 4/5 bed luxury homes a 100 yards away on this narrow road.
This road and narrow bridge is detiorating fast.as heavy waggons ,from these sites is causing big pot-holes. I think only social housing ie for young people should be allowed now.
Lots of 1 bed flats is what is needed for 20-30 year olds.
In the Chapel lane/Holly rd area ,we have 120 flats under construction.These are meant for rich mature people,as they start at £320,000 for a one bed,many are £500.000 + plus huge management charges.Who can afford these.Yet Ches East keeps approving development on small sites,by demolishing old houses,with large gardens. Baz
DELETED ACCOUNT
Thursday 8th March 2018 at 3:21 pm
Barry - couldn't agree more about the road and bridge on Adlington Road. Chapel Lane should have been social housing - close to town centre, close to doctors etc - and would have been a way to regenerate the town. Alternatively it could have been parking. It was a site that Cheshire East owned so had some control over. As to the new flats being for "rich mature people" Cheshire East seems to believe that apartments are all that mature people want. It would be interesting to know how many of the small houses on new estates have been bought by mature people to avoid the dreaded "apartments for the old".
Terry Roeves
Thursday 8th March 2018 at 6:13 pm
The Care Home owners need to make money of course. Who wouldn’t?
CEC need to buy capacity and capability to fill the beds. Below highlights the
crisis. It’s taken from the Independent on line today. The story appears elsewhere...
The news comes as doctors revealed that NHS intensive care units (ICUs) are being forced to send patients elsewhere due to a lack of beds.
Four in five ICUs have chronic bed and staff shortages and are being forced to send patients to other hospitals, according to The Guardian,with patients being transferred from one ICU to another for non-clinical reasons in 80 per cent of hospitals.
Jon Williams
Thursday 8th March 2018 at 7:51 pm
Don't all assume that the Private Care Home is not making enough money to survive, it could even be a little gold mine given it's location if it was modernised.
Martin Fox
Friday 9th March 2018 at 8:08 pm
Jon Newell explains an interesting view but the story is much deeper. Most don’t understand the difference between Nursing Homes and Care Homes. Having worked in health administration for many years I can tell you the situation is appalling. Care homes are closing on an average of ten per week somewhere in the country. CEC have not increased the amount they pay for care since April 2016 so one wonders where the two percent precept increase in April 2017 went to and what happened to the £2 billion Philip Hammond announced in March 2017 for social care over three years. Care Homes didn’t see a penny. With difficulty I have research details of what CEC pay for Care home provision and its £2.59 per hour and for dementia they pay £3.07 per hour. Is it surprising that Hillside should look to alternative survival. As for the issue over one beech tree in an area with a plethora of mature trees appears like an excuse to refuse. Never mind affordable housing it could end up with squatters who will have free accommodation. As for bed blocking which is a subject on its own, what happens is that Care Homes are paid for by CEC but Nursing Homes are paid by the NHS. Draw your own conclusions.
Mark Goldsmith
Friday 9th March 2018 at 11:13 pm
How come this can be refused because of the loss of a few jobs but the larger loss of jobs at Energie fitness was completely ignored.

Once again CE making it up as they go along.
Martin Kitchin
Saturday 10th March 2018 at 7:12 am
Hello Mark Goldsmith,

Been away from the media for a few days & just catching up.

You've beaten me to it !

Yes why can Cheshire East planning brush over the job (& independent businesses) lost at Energie in Summerfields Village but not here on Adlington Road at the care home ?

And remember the Energie loss removes recreation & leisure from the community - forever - for a store that 400+ objectors & 600+ petitioners told Cheshire East planning they did'nt want ?

Funny that . . .
Marc Staples
Saturday 10th March 2018 at 10:18 am
Yet more chaos planned in the area and with the approval of another development round the corner how much more of this will their be It really needs to stop before a area that used to be beautiful turns into a over developed nightmare constant gridlock and over full schools.
The roads will get even worse with the extra traffic although I don't actually know how they could get any worse.
We all comment about the barmy planning decisions but nothing ever happens and they still go ahead
CEC are not interested in our opinion or would have commented on here and at least explained why they had made the decisions they have.
I really don't know how and if we can stop this madness but the future of my children looks very bleak and moving somewhere else may be the only option which is sad.
Jon Newell
Sunday 11th March 2018 at 7:03 pm
There is something quite odd about the stream of comments.

As the article makes clear, both WTC and the local planning officer recommend rejection of this scheme.

However, almost all the comments assume that both these bodies will be ignored - and assume that these two bodies have no power.

The time to comment will be if these two bodies' recommendations are somehow over ruled. If they are, we can legimately ask why do they exist in the first place?