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.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Enlighten me or indeed correct me!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
where we differ ....pete.....is my view of the world is much more free thinking...progressive 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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
CEC do not own The Carrrs, this land was gifted to the people of Wilmslow.