An appeal has been allowed and planning permission granted to enable a new care home to be built in Wilmslow which has been described by a local councillor as "an astonishing and very distressing decision".
Altrincham based New Care Projects LLP have won their appeal to demolish two four bedroomed houses in large plots at 51 to 53 Handforth Road and replace them with a 60 bedroom 3 storey care home.
The controversial plans were refused by the Northern Planning Committee for the second time in January 2020, after being deferred by them in December 2019.
The Planning Officer recommended the application for approval by the Northern Planning Committee, however members disagreed with his recommendation voting by 8 votes to 3 to refuse planning permission on the grounds that "the proposal would lead to the overdevelopment of the site due to its inappropriate scale, mass and bulk - detrimentally impacting the character and appearance of the area, and there are no material considerations deemed to outweigh that harm."
An earlier application for a slightly larger care home on the same site was dismissed on appeal in October 2019. The previous Inspector was concerned about the visual impact of the proposal when viewed from Handforth Road, and found that the height and width of the proposed building would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.
This second appeal proposal also involves a single, large building but changes were made to the Handforth Road elevation following the earlier dismissal and the scheme was re-designed to appear from Handforth Road as two distinct detached dwellings with a glazed link connecting them.
Having considered the main issue of "the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area", the Planning Inspectorate concluded that "The sensitive design of the buildings together with significant landscaping would ensure that the proposed development would be able to successfully assimilate into the area. I conclude that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, and would comply with the requirements of Policies SD2 and SE1 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 (CELPS) in relation to character, local distinctiveness and sense of place."
Following the decision CEO at New Care Chris McGoff posted on Twitter "Planning Committee should hang their head in shame today.Ignorantly refused 2listen 2Proffeaional Planning Officers who supported application. As such delayed job creation&deprived locals of healthcare facility which will help battle Covid&support."
"Gr8 result winning Appeal today, but what a waste of time & tax payer money its been.All due 2 NIMBYism,who found support from ex housing minister @EstherMcVey1 who spouted mistruths in her objection, in hope of winning a few votes. Glad she's gone."
Councillor Barry Burkhill said “This is an astonishing and very distressing decision, taken by a planning inspector after a unanimous refusal at the Northern Planning Committee of yet another application for a care home on this distinctive and sought after residential part of Handforth Ward.
“It is another kick in the teeth to residents and to those who work tirelessly to represent them to make what we believe are the correct local decisions on their behalf.
“If local unanimous decisions of this importance are to be overturned by an inspector, then there is something very seriously wrong with the planning appeals system; the first being that there is no appeal for the public against this decision. The secretary of state can intervene by calling in the decision for himself to decide and I hope that our MP will make this request.
“We cannot have well considered local democratic decisions thrown out by an inspector when that decision has such enormous ramifications for the area, for local residents and for the local health services. I hope that the secretary of state will listen to our MP and consider this decision in the light of all the evidence and particularly as the application is very little different from that dismissed previously at appeal.”
Councillor Toni Fox, Cheshire East Council cabinet member for planning, said: "The council is naturally disappointed with the decision of the planning inspector to allow this appeal.
"The inspector has taken account of the previous appeal scheme and decided that, in their view, the design changes put forward in the new proposals are sufficient to overcome the reasons for refusing planning permission.
"Given the nature of the key issues, namely the subjective matters of design and character, there is no prospect that the council would be successful if it were to challenge the judgement."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
There have been so many objections to building what is in effect a commercial monstrosity in a residential area, yet the reasons for approving it are without foundation and quite frankly feeble.
Yes I am unfortunate to live nearby and despite what the report says it will affect all those in the area twenty fours hours a day seven days a week and before that there could be a two year construction period. On that note, where are all the contractors going to park their vehicles during this process?
Shame on him. Clearly somebody who lacks respect for democracy, assured by millions globally who died for it.
The decision has some remarkable comments in it.
It claims the site is well served by public transport when clearly it is not. Especially in the evenings and at weekends. Anyone who has ever had a loved one in care will know most visits are on Saturday and Sunday afternoons.
It says the car parking is adequate when it is at least 10 spaces shy of CEC recommended levels - and this is on a site where road parking is impossible. This means overflow into the residential streets in the immediate area - on Saturdays and Sundays.
Therefore is the planning inspectorate planing to address these issues before the home is built......
Can I suggest that if you rightly oppose this monstrosity, please write to Ester McVey and urge her to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. She can be contacted at the following email addresses.
refinements its bulk and its effect on the immediate vicinity with the domestic scale is not
acceptable.I am sorry to say however with the current revisions to the planning system by
the Government a reversal is unlikely given the political scene.
McCoff's comments are grotesque, childish and bordline bullying. Does he apply the same attitude to those in his company's care???
Still, he has got what he wants - more money.
So if a development similar to this one was proposed to be plonked next to his nice home I bet you he wouldn't be pleased and strongly object too. That Mr McGoff is true NIMBY'ism - do unto others, as you wouldn’t like them to do unto you.
With so many greenfield sites [agricultural land in a country that imports half the food we NEED] being given the approval for building, our planners should have arranged for any new homes like this one to be incorporated on those sites and not amongst a residential area at the expense of knocking down existing homes. The proposed "Garden Village' [what a sick name!], we are told, will have a pub and a shop and... which all sounds so lovely and will look great on the computer generated images with lots of lovely trees all over the site and happy people walking, cycling and pushing prams around - so why could there not be a PLAN for a care home there which would not involve demolishing existing houses. Isn’t a care home as much a necessity in this Garden Village as much as a pub and a few shops? The fact that McGoff's company has had to buy existing dwellings [how much £1m?] and clear the site BEFORE starting construction on the home means that the finances will start with a minus balance sheet. This will not be a problem as the cost of staying in one of these modern asylums will not be cheap.
I notice that McGoff's company only builds 'homes' in rather expensive locations and so is ONLY doing it for financial gain - some of which will be his! See: https://www.newcarehomes.com/care-homes/
At the end of the day it really is a shameful decision by our planning department who should be able to allow care homes to be built if we need them - but like houses - the right sort of houses in the right places at the right price.
To my mind this approval fails to meet all three similar conditions.
How can it now be stopped, is it the local MP,or maybe an investigative journalist who could help the embattled locals.Very bad decisions like these leave a negative legacy for a lifetime. I hope that if there is an appeal, that the system and the individual who has allowed this, should be checked thoroughly to see what has clearly gone wrong here.
The un-elected and anonymous 'Planning Officer' is not. Neither is he or she exempt from identification and providing correspondence details for clarification or further contact issues.
The NPPF and Government planning documents I have read always indicate the requirement for 'transparency'in planning process, also reflected in The Nolan Report.
That seems missing here .. without it residents are kept in the dark as are our elected councillors .. and that cant be right.