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.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
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: Check out NPPF re "Pepper Potting."
http://bit.ly/2mY223Q
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 http://ubm.io/2nqYmuH - a resource base for architects.
or this
http://bit.ly/2naRmA6
The HBF has also conducted its own research.
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 depth.....school places......affordable housing...brownfield sites... quality of housing...flat roofs...pepper potting.....garden sizes....pitched roofs all cited as reasons
I could go on. Just be upfront about your motives. No development anywhere.
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.
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.
" 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.