Revised plans, submitted by Jones Homes for a new housing development at Little Stanneylands, are due to be determined by the Northern Planning Committee next week.
The scheme is for the demolition of existing buildings and replacement with eight dwellings along with garages, 16 parking spaces, gardens, access and landscaping.
The proposed development comprises of two 3 bedroom homes, three 4 bedroom and three 5 bedroom family homes with an area of open green space towards the front of the development.
There are currently five existing buildings on site, comprising three single storey stable buildings, a small stable block and a large two-storey barn with mezzanine floor which was used for storage.
Previous plans to build ten homes (ref. 20/4737M) on a one hectare located immediately south of the large residential development which currently under construction were refused the Northern Planning Committee, against the recommendation of the Planning Officer, in February 2022.
The previous scheme was refused because the proximity, location and height of three of the closest homes would cause harm to the significance of the group of listed buildings adjacent. There are three listed buildings to the west and south of the site. This includes Little Stanneylands, the Barn and Rose Cottage - all of which were grade II listed in 1984.
The planning officer is recommended members of the planning committee approve the plans at their meeting on Wednesday, 16th November.
In a report prepared for the meeting the officer states "The proposal follows the refusal of a scheme for 10 no. dwellings, resulting in the removal of two dwellings furthest to the south of the site. This has allowed the retention of a buffer between the designated heritage assets (3 no. Grade II Listed Buildings) and the proposed development. While the development would be visible from the listed buildings, the distance along with the reduced scale of plot 7, which would be a bungalow style property, and appropriate landscaping would reduce the impact and would not be harmful.
"The application is considered to result in an acceptable impact on the listed buildings and their setting, which addresses the previous reason for refusal. The application is recommended for approval. The comments from the neighbours and Town Council are acknowledged and have been considered within this report. However, the proposal accords with the policies in the development plan and represents a sustainable form of development. Therefore, given that there are no material considerations to indicate otherwise, in accordance with policy MP1 of the CELPS, the application should be approved without delay, subject to conditions and s106 contributions."
Wilmslow Town Council recommended refusal "on the grounds of Plot 7 being too close to the listed building and detrimental to the heritage setting, contrary to Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan Policy TH3 (Heritage assets). The development erodes the buffer zone previously felt to be essential to the planning application for the adjacent David Wilson Homes' site and significantly disrupts the green infrastructure network, thus contrary to Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan Policy NE6 (development in gardens).
"The development of the adjacent site (application 22/1599) contains the listed building and must be considered together with this application to develop a satisfactory outcome for this important setting."
Objections were also received from approximately 19 addresses following the initial consultation. Following re-consultation on the amended plans, a further 4 comments were received to date.
The deadline for comments has been extended to the 11th November so any new comments received prior to the committee meeting will be included in an update.
Plans can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council website by searching for planning reference 22/1567M.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Now we are looking at once again years of further roads up, HGV traffic daily along with trades and industrial noise let alone further degradation to the wildlife and trees all so the owner can milk a few more Millions form the project. The grass verges have again been driven over by HGV vehicles and for sure Cadent will say it’s not their responsibility to level off the verges yet it’s their road works that have displaced the traffic off the road.
We were told when DWH were planned that the impact would be minimal yet for two years a road sweeper has tried to remove mud from the road surface and achieved nothing but scrubbing away the road markings and causing traffic delays.
This project now calls for further junctions to be created on the road further destruction to the environment all for 8 dwellings they seem to have conveniently overlooked the other plan to redeveloped the historical buildings to individual dwellings also with a further junction being created.
The road works currently carried out by Cadent although not finished are of a poor finish with double yellow lines stuck down in a tape like strip which the day after can be pulled off as they have not bonded with the surface. The tarmac is not the same grade as the road and therefore is porous and will pot hole in no time then being left to the council tax payers to pay for its repair, if the council deem it falls within their pot hole criterial.
Your article suggested limited public response but they amend their proposal so often that the public lose track of which one to respond to hence closing date being extended again. This is a strategy to make it look like there is little public disapproval.
Since these projects started there have been no noticeable benefit to the area. The traffic far from being reduced as the highways said it would by the airport link road opening has increased with DWH residents having two cars per house minimum so that’s approx 350 cars for that estate roaring up and down all day. Roaring as I think the average engine size is 3.0ltr and it seems the roundabout is used like some elliptical catapult NASA might apply in moon shots.
This whole project is an example of the inability of the planning department to look at development and it’s impact in a holistic way. There should be a period of piece and recovery between projects not just back to back development new projects as they all have a cumulative effect on the environment and the health and welfare of the community. For the Council it’s a paperwork exercise for the developer it’s a money making exercise for the community it’s years of disruption, stress and degradation.
For those who may read this, yes I have expressed my thoughts to the council regarding this project but I wish a few more would. It may not effect you directly but you can be sure you will one day have the same problem at your door if things don’t change.