Plans for a development of retirement flats on the site currently occupied by Wilmslow Police Station were refused.
Members of the Northern Planning Committee went against the Planning Officer's recommendation and rejected the scheme due to the lack of on-site affordable housing provision, as requested by the Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan.
McCarthy Stone initially applied in March 2023 to build 56 retirement apartments then in July 2024 they submitted amended plans for 52 apartments for the over 55s, to be built following the demolition of the existing police station. The four storey building would have a lift to each floor and contain 27 one bedroom and 25 two bedroom apartments.
Cllr Mark Goldsmith, who attended the Northern Planning on Wednesday 2nd October to speak against this application, commented "The proposed building is too big, too tall, too ugly, too near the park, has too few parking spaces and too few affordable units. It should be refused."
The Planning Officer had recommended the plans for approval subject to a s106 agreement to secure a financial contribution totalling £1.115m, including £915,247 for off-site affordable housing. However, eight members voted for refusal whilst two voted in favour and one abstained.
Cllr David Jefferay said "Personally, I did not share the committee's conclusion and voted against refusal of the development. Whilst I suspect that will be unpopular amongst residents, it was and still is my view that refusal for that reason would be impossible to defend at appeal.
"Although the Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan asks for affordable housing on that site, this application only forms part of the site and therefore affordable housing could be put on the remaining portion of the site if/ when it comes forward and housing policy does allow affordable housing provision to be met off-site when it cannot be met on-site. Further, the application fulfils another requirement of the Neighbourhood Plan for the site, which is for housing to meet needs of people wishing to downsize (e.g. retired people).
"Although I would rather a different scheme was put forward for the site (we have had quite a few developments of this type in Wilmslow over recent years), I could not identify any planning reasons to justify refusal and planning decisions have to be based on policy, not popularity or preference. If not based on policy, applicants go straight to appeal, the decision is overturned and the council has to pay significant costs.
"I will not be surprised if that happens in this case, the costs of which the council can ill-afford at the moment. As councillor on a planning committee, I have to make difficult decisions based on policy and this was one of the most difficult and unpalatable ones I have had to make so far because it was against what I wanted. It is particularly frustrating when applicants submit "viability assessments" claiming that schemes cannot afford to meet their obligations to the community (like affordable housing) as was the case in this application. Unfortunately in such cases the council's hands are tied although the council's review of the assessment did identify a further £1m of contributions that the development could make."
Cheshire Constabulary have been granted planning permission to build a new two police station at their site. The replacement two storey police station will be located on the site of the existing car park where there are currently 35 spaces - making a portion of the land available for the development of retirement apartments.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
My real frustration is that planning law allowed the Police Station replacement and the “aged owner apartments” to be treated as two separate applications.
I know that it was technically correct but it defied common sense.
The two applications are critically inter-dependent as is illustrated by the fact that the only access to the Police station (both on foot and by car) is a across the apartment car park. I still can not understand how the CEC Highways department thought this appropriate.
Has the two applications been considered in tandem, we could have had a properly considered compromise which could have given all the parties involved 80% of what they desired. Personally, I would have put the apartments at the rear of the site with the police station at front. This would have been a flexible provision which, while not allowing the Police - as owners of the land - to go for maximum profit would have allowed at least some of the Neighbourhood Plan aspirations to be met and allowed the Police to have separate access.
Once again, I know that there is a sub-station which obstructs the site access. However, this is a man made structure built in the last 40 years or so. Such structures can be relocated - at a cost (see point above re Police looking to maximise financial return.
The map on page 95 also defines the building line and frontage alongside Little Lindow which is where they have planned it (and it is not actually as bad as it would have been when the Neighbourhood plan was written because the playground has now moved (further away towards Altrincham Road).
These are the sorts of details that made me conclude that there were insufficient planning grounds for refusal and hence I reluctantly voted for it.
Ugly is subjective.
Housing policy allows affordable housing met off-site if unable to be met on-site? What awful double speak is that? Surely if the applicant plans cannot contribute affordable housing within the designated site, the application is legally refused on those grounds?; the plans be adjusted or the applicant find a bigger plot?
And if the police station is to be built on the existing car park, where do the cars park?
No wonder these money grabbing builders are laughing all the way to the bank/appeals/add your own - the council's hands are tied.
Internet dictionary's define subjective as follows:
influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts,
The Planning Officers Report states:
“On balance, the lack of policy compliant financial contributions and on-site affordable housing provision is considered to be outweighed by the high-quality design”.
In my opinion, “high-quality design” is most definitely subjective.
The decision notice informing the applicant of the decision states:
“The proposed development comprises a lack of affordable housing which is contrary to policies SC5 (Affordable Homes) of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 and H3 (Housing Mix) and KS2 (Police, Fire and Ambulance Stations) of the Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan 2019.”
That’s not subjective. It’s based very much on fact.