Plans to replace former care home with apartments blocked

Plans to replace a former care home with a block of apartments have been rejected by the Northern Planning Committee who went against the recommendation of the planning officer.

Mirasa Wilmslow, who own the 0.23Ha site set back off Adlington Road, sought planning permission to demolish a two storey detached building used as a care home known as Hillside and replace it with a building containing 11 apartments, 21 car parking spaces and 10 cycling spaces.

The Northern Planning Committee refused the application by 6 votes to 4.

Councillor Craig Browne said "The reasons for refusal were: overdevelopment of the site/over intensification of use; impact on the amenity (overbearing/overlooking nature of the proposed development) and impact on character of the area (visual appearance and parking)."

Wilmslow Town Council had previously objected to the scheme on the grounds of it being overbearing on neighbouring properties and out-of-keeping with properties in Wilmslow Park.

Amended plans were received during the application period - 22 objections were received prior to the amendments with a further 8 objections received following, with all of these commenters having already commented earlier.

However, the Planning Officer recommended the application for approval at the meeting on Wednesday, 11th March, saying "comments from the neighbours and town council are noted, however the site comprises previously developed land in a sustainable location, with access to a range of local services and facilities nearby and has good public transport links.

"It would add to the stock of housing and its construction and occupation would result in social and economic benefits, albeit relatively minor. The development would make effective use of a previously developed site.

"The proposal also raises no significant design, amenity or highway safety issues."

A previous application (reference 16/6225M) submitted in 2016 by Jones Homes for the demolition of the building and the construction of a new three storey building providing 14 apartments was refused in March 2018.

Hillside Residential Home, Planning Applications


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

Roger Bagguley
Sunday 15th March 2020 at 7:20 pm
Comment made by objectors raised issues of design, amenity and road safety. Also, over development and overbearing. All, according to the officer worthy of little more than being "noted." when an application makes use of a previously developed site. But yet again this relatively new Northern Planning Board has rejected an application that paid little respect to the Neighbourhood Plan or, in this case, the Three Parks document. Good decision.

Of course it is good to clean up a previously developed site - RoW policy from the outset in order to protect the green belt, but respecting the local amenity and the safety of the public come well before any attempt to maximise profits.
Bill Bennett
Wednesday 18th March 2020 at 5:46 pm
Great decision from the planning committee in refusing this application. Hopefully this will send a message to developers, whose main aim is profit, with no concern for neighbours or the town in general,
Ludo McGurk
Thursday 19th March 2020 at 8:33 am
What are the "range of local services and facilities nearby and good public transport links." I have lived in Wilmslow Park for many years and am not aware of these within easy walking distance.
The building portrayed is also formidibly ugly which obviously hasn't helped it through any planning process. The building to be demolished is very pleasing in appearance, great shame nobody wants it as it is.
Manuel Golding
Thursday 19th March 2020 at 7:30 pm
What an ugly 1970s style cheap looking building with clearly no thought as to style or the local community. We can clearly see this build is based on one parameter, big & easy profit for the developer.

If the planning officer truly believes what he/she has put into print "access to ...local services & facilities nearby...good public transport links" etc clearly demonstrates he/she doesn't know the area or hasn't bothered to do his/her local homework.A sham of an endorsement for which the officer should be made to account for his/her recommendation superiors.
For the officer to simply dismiss "comments from neighbours & town council" so glibly & without taking any notice of same in real terms us disgraceful. Serious questions need to be asked of this individual.

The NPB rejected the application very decidedly which shows that at long last the change in councillors & control of CEC is shifting decidedly from the developer's "in the pockets" previous council leadership. This is due in no small way to Residents of Wilmslow's (RoW) councillors, the new council leadership RoW supports and to Wilmslow voters for having faith in RoW councillors to make the necessary changes at last May's ballot boxes.

What public transport links are "nearby" asks Ludo McGurk? Frequent bus services? Any bus service that is nearby & frequent? Please tell us. Is it a phantom service which the officer & his/her informant wishes to keep under wraps?

RoWs Roger Baqguley is right in stating our policy has always been to protect our green belt whilst respecting local amenities & safety well before developers attempts to gouge maximum profits whilst being so uncaring of local needs & concerns.
Jon Armstrong
Thursday 19th March 2020 at 8:28 pm
The design is a bit bland, but it's false to pretend there aren't extensive public transport links only about 10 minutes walk away. These definitely aren't phantom and are within easy walking distance for most.
Manuel Golding
Sunday 22nd March 2020 at 2:06 pm
The "public transport" links are very few & far between. Trains maybe fairly frequent but there is no bus service nearby to get into Wilmslow. or the station. For the elderly or infirm it is just "not on". Phantom is the right word to describe what we don't see or have in the true sense of the planning officer's implication.