Plans for 10 new homes at Little Stanneylands

Plans have been submitted for a new residential development at Little Stanneylands in Wilmslow.

Jones Homes are applying for planning permission to demolish the five existing buildings, comprising of stables and a large two-storey barn, and erect 10 dwellings. The one hectare site which was previously used as a horse training facility, but is no longer in use as the associated paddocks have now been built on.

The northern part of the site is allocated for residential development in the adopted Local Plan and the remainder of the allocated site is currently being developed by David Wilson Homes to create 174 new homes.

The development will consist of ten two-storey detached homes, seven of the properties will have 4 bedrooms whilst the remaining three properties will have 5 bedrooms.

The planning application can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council website by searching for planning reference 20/4737M.



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

David Smith
Wednesday 25th November 2020 at 4:28 pm
With all the housing developments not far away it would be better to plant trees - Little Stanneylands Wood or even Jones Wood or a public space like the Carrs for recreation. Anything but more houses for rich people.
Diane Holcroft
Wednesday 25th November 2020 at 5:27 pm
David Smith: Rich or poor it is still more important to plant trees, create a natural green space etc. More houses, more cars, more roads, etc is the last thing needed in an already overcrowded and congested area.
Sheila Grindrod
Wednesday 25th November 2020 at 5:51 pm
Quite agree with Diane and David. They will not listen to all of our common sense. There are too many houses now in the pipeline including the current proposal for 1700 houses in Handforth. This area's services cannot cope with all the influx of people and traffic. The new bypass was built to alleviate the traffic problem not so that Cheshire East could add to it. I do think that some trees should planted as suggested, it would certainly be welcomed within the area.
Lynne Prescott
Wednesday 25th November 2020 at 7:47 pm
Yup - with all the four and 5 bed homes being built we must have exceed local demand surely!
Simon Rodrigues
Thursday 26th November 2020 at 7:24 am
Over development and such beautiful buildings to be destroyed a standing heritage for the area to be replaced with modern day houses next to a large plot of modern day houses is overkill and will not facility the safety of road users. Im already finding a mass of people walking families on walks up and down stanneylannds rd due to the new development only a matter of time before there is serious consequences as the road has not been designed for pedestrians as it lacks a pavement and the speed limit hasn’t been changed. But hey lets just build more houses and increase the income for local council instead of ensuring the new residents are safe when walking and enjoying the local area being forced to retreat for there own safety.
Simon Rodrigues
Thursday 26th November 2020 at 7:51 am
The entrance to the site and exit would be at a part where the Road narrows which would contradict the new road lay out to resolve that same issue prior to the installation of the roundabout safety. I feel the site should of been included in the original sale and could of been incorporated into the safety design of the roundabout as this is already a problem for the current owner having near miss to oncoming traffic from the left having to pass into oncoming traffic. The junction would have to be stepped back losing a plot for house or maybe two for consideration of traffic safety and footpaths to the left exit which is not incorporated to the design the site lacks consideration for safety. The area lacks small affordable living 2-3 bedroom houses rather than large expensive housing which the site
fails to include at least some affordable houses. I feel the owner should sell the plot as it is and any form of planning for this site be rejected and an order of protection be placed on the site as the houses form part of the local land and heritage.
John Harries
Friday 27th November 2020 at 12:51 pm
More, more and even more, are we surprised?
Another bit of local heritage going down the money grubbing pan and considering the present unprecedented C-19 pressure on the entertainment and food industry it would be no great surprise to see Stanneylands Hotel go the same way.
David Smith
Saturday 28th November 2020 at 9:09 pm
Yes folks. As I have said before - more muppetry from the various muppets who run our lives around here and are elected by us or we pay for them out of our various taxes. Why do the opinions and wishes of the many get ignored by the desires of the few and when will things change? Perhaps when the residents around this neck of the fast disappearing woods realise that doing the dreadful thing of NOT voting for the government that you have always voted for might just for once be a step in the right direction.
Anita Willoughby
Sunday 29th November 2020 at 5:43 pm
How many more people around here NEED a 5 bedroomed house? If they do, we have to ask why. I have it on good authority (aka Country file) that if we don't do something about climate change now, it will be too late for future generations. How many families then will NEED a 5 bedroomed house?
David Smith
Monday 30th November 2020 at 10:48 am
Fat chance I suppose that the likes of Mr Peter Emerson 'Orbit' Jones might view the BBC Countryfile programme of 29 November 2020 at the link:

...and have a change of heart, then hand over this plot of land to Transition Wilmslow to oversee the creation of another local woodland by 'planting' the seeds of a greener, more caring planet in the minds of local schoolchildren?

Funny, isn't it, that all these lovely computer-generated images and plans of pretty, desirable new housing projects are interspersed and surrounded by beautiful, towering, mature 100+-year-old trees? Whereas the reality is that there are none at all. The property developers are just selling a dream that almost always bears little to the reality of what they produce. How can anyone sell something with information that is at variance with the reality. Surely there must be a case for the advertising standards authority to take an interest and insist on a more correct representation?