Graham, Tom and Ian

Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle West & Gatley Learn more

Plans for new care home behind Abney Hall

by Lib Dem team on 4 April, 2012

Below are the presentation and handouts from Care UK, who are proposing replacing the existing office block behind Abney Hall with a care home.  The presentation was originally made to the Cheadle Village Partnership.

Please do not take this as either support for, or opposition to the proposals – this will most likely end up as a planning application for us to consider.  However, we are always keen to hear residents’ thoughts.

Abney Hall care home proposal – presentation to Cheadle Village Partnership

Abney Hall Care Home proposal leave behinds

   27 Comments

27 Responses

  1. I Parker says:

    Digusting! How dare this corporate ‘CARE UK’ be so ignorant to think that they can build this within the grounds of Abney Hall! A massive 80 bedded, three storey unit of which the design is not inkeeping with the existing buildings within the grounds of Abney Park. The plans show also just 24 car parking spaces but a facility of this structure would house c35 staff at any one time, not adequate spaces for staff, not to mention visitors, family and friends etc.

    Not against bringing a new care home to the Cheadle area, which would present employment opportunities, the position of this site within the grounds of Abney Hall is impracticable. Abney Hall and the surrounding parkland is a sacred environmental, for the local community to enjoy which improves and create habitats for wildlife whilst keeping it as a local nature reserve and a place to enjoy for the people of Cheadle. It is one of the last remaining wetlands in the Stockport area. Year by year, more green space is eaten up by large corporate developers, and whilst I appreciate the initial plans by Care UK are to build this development within an existing site, as we all know once planning consent is given this then sets the standard for other developers or for Care UK to extend within the coming years. Care UK have a strategy of high level investment and in sites which do not perform or, as a result of ever changing NHS policies and funding, then divest these underperforming sites, so a further concern is that planning maybe changed in the future from a care home facility into another, commercial concern in Abney Hall.

    The current use of Abney Hall is permitted (via Bruntwood Estates) as office space. The current (newer part of Abney Hall), has a large, enclosed car park and even when the hall was utilised as office space by EDS, there was never the amount of vehicles and or disruption that are anticipated by this planned care facility by Care UK. Use as offices fits within the Abney Park Hall landscape; weekday daytime whereas a proposal to change the planning registration would impact to a 24/7 facility.

    Why Abney? There are masses of brown field sites in and around the Cheadle vicinity so why plans are afoot to distress a beautiful suburb, creating noise, additional footfall, pollution and car congestion is clearly shocking.

    A structure this scale would require a minimum of 12-18 months construction – 18 months of noise, pollution, increased congestion, danger to the community using Abney Hall parkland as well as the impact this would have on the existing wildlife – some of which would be killed or scared off never to return.

    There is a mass of feeling that this planned development should not go ahead in the grounds of Abney Hall Park and that Care UK should look at more suitable brown field sites in the Cheadle area.

  2. brent sandiford says:

    Scale down the size and allow then they will go away as it wont be cost effective to construct. Make it residential only and a maximum of 20 beds.

  3. Paula Isherwood says:

    As a volunteers for Gatley Carrs and a supporter of the volunteers at Abney I would like to endorse the remarks of I Parker. Unfortunately there is no chance they will make it 20 beds as they want care, nursing and dementia so it has to be huge. The 24 parking places will be insufficient for nursing, doctors, physiotherapy,administrative, security, cleaning, care and catering staff, plus visitors so where will the 24+ park?

    Volunteers at Abney were told that with the money Bruntwood would get they would be able to do up the Hall and then lease that. On being asked where the Hall staff would park there was silence.

    Cheadle and Gatley have very few open spaces, Abney being the largest, and if this gets the “go ahead” heaven help the rest of our green spaces, although maybe Stockport will be glad as they won’t need maintenance staff when they all become built over!

    I understand that Abney volunteers will be setting up a petition and carry letters protesting about the development for people to sign but they are very worried about the whole situation as Care UK are a huge organisation with lots of money.

  4. Glyn Jones says:

    Pity they don’t want to use the Barnes Hospital site – there is plenty of space and it is in sore need of some tlc.

  5. Estelle Weiner says:

    I agree about the old Barnes Hospital site. That area would likely be more suitable.
    Regarding any planned use of this particular area, I have often wondered what it might be used for – there was once the idea of a school. However, if you walk along the Abney grounds perimeter alongside the M60 at the side of the old office block, the traffic hum/rumble is quite considerable. And almost 24/7.
    This must limit the number of ventures that might consider taking it on.

  6. Iain Roberts says:

    The following comment is from Christine Hession of the Friends of Abney Hall.

    I agree with everything which I Parker said and the other people who have added their comments.

    The proposed design is totally inappropriate next to a Grade 2 Listed building. Care UK are trying to say that the proposed design (three floors) is lower than Abney Court (two floors) because the new design doesn’t have the pitched roof. They also think a further selling point is that it is further away from the Listed wall. However I have studied the Court building whilst in the park and because the design of the Court is so sympathetic with the Hall, the steeply pitched roof does not cause any real problem and, strangely is not obtrusive. The wall itself is also very high.
    Buildings built to modern designs are notorious for showing their age very quickly – what will this new building look like when it is as old as the Hall – if it gets to that age.
    I also object to a perfectly good building being demolished just because it doesn’t suit what the developers have in mind.
    Care UK were stressing that they were bring jobs to Cheadle – but the jobs which will be available will be poorly paid jobs. The finished development will however be extremely expensive, so it is unlikely that many of the residents would come from the local area.
    Care UK are saying that all the parking for the site is within the walls. They say they have done studies and the findings say that 24 car parking sites is perfectly adequate. They are planning on having 80 residents – I think 24 parking spaces is totally inadequate. As well as the care staff themselves, there will also be staff for the shop, at least one hairdresser, administrative staff, catering staff, cleaning staff, security staff. Then there are the visitor’s cars. They are also presuming that none of the residents will have cars themselves.
    Care UK are saying that there was much more traffic when it was used as offices but the figure they are quoting for cars parking is proved to be wrong by one of their own aerial photographs which shows the walled garden used as a car park.
    Care UK also say that the majority of their staff will walk or cycle to work. Is this because care workers are notoriously poorly paid?
    The development will have shift workers presumably to cover 24 hours, 7 days a week. How many people are going to walk in Abney Park in the dark for a late shift or early shift, in winter, in bad weather, etc. I love Abney Park and I wouldn’t even consider going in the park in the dark!
    I also have serious reservations about people driving in the park, if they are not coming to the park specifically to use it as a park. We have had many problems with footballers driving through the park to the car park by the pitch. They drive too fast and are a danger to pedestrians and give no consideration to older people walking, children playing in a park and dogs. Delivery drivers going to the Hall when it was offices were also a problem.
    The park is a Local Nature Reserve and there is an SSBI in the park. It is the only wetland in the Borough and it is a very precious environment. The building work is going to have a detrimental effect on the wildlife. We have a breeding pair of herons, kingfishers, breeding buzzards, owls as well as many mammals, butterflies, moths and insects. Visitors come to see the wildlife and enjoy the peace in a wild area in the centre of Cheadle.
    Because the park is a natural area, there are dirt paths, some of which are uneven because of tree roots, there are also 20 ponds within the boundaries as well as several streams. Some of the paths are muddy after rain and some are quite steep. When this was pointed out to Care UK, they said the residents wouldn’t be using the park. Does this mean that the new care home is just going to be a state of the art, extremely expensive, prison?
    If the residents are not going to use the park, why does Care UK need to build the home in the park – as other people have commented, there are plenty of brown field sites they could use, especially if the residents are not being allowed out.
    Care UK kept saying that with the money Bruntwood received they could renovate the Hall. I have several problems with this supposed ‘sweetener’:
    1 I was under the impression that the whole site was owned by Stockport MBC. Bruntwood merely lease it. Why are Bruntwood getting any money?
    2 Bruntwood have a lease with Stockport, which is presumably a full repairing lease, so they should be doing this work anyway.
    3 Care UK also kept implying that the Hall was in very bad condition, but I know that it isn’t – unless it has deteriorated since September 2011.
    Presuming that Bruntwood did renovate the Hall, they would then want to let it as offices. If they manage to find someone to rent the offices, where are these new tenants going to park – Care UK have built on the car parking site – and the space in front of the Hall is not sufficient for a building the size of Abney Hall.
    Have the people who live in the nearby cottages been approached? Bruntwood and/or SMBC didn’t tell them about the school idea. If I lived in one of those cottages, I would not be happy about having that building overlooking my house.
    Another point which I have serious concerns about, is that if one developer is allowed a change of use permission, and allowed to demolish a perfectly good building and build something totally out of character with the area – then this will just open the doors for other developers to start nibbling away at the edges of the park, until there is no park left and the people of Cheadle and Stockport will have lost more of their heritage.

  7. Sam says:

    Yes Barnes hospital will make an ideal location, for both the elderly peoples home and for the community – the site could do with investment and will pick Cheadle up a bit. Always welcoming new jobs to the area, epsecially when things in the economy aren’t too great however having siad that Care UK does have an aweful repution of paying minimum wage scale jobs (I know a care worker who has worked for them for 4 years now on the minimum wage and without an annual cost of living pay review since she has been employed there) so probably not the bext business to bring into Cheadle. I agree with the other lines from comments to, Abney is a lovely place and an it goes to show how an organisation like think they can bully their way into a local community by building such and ugly and out of keeping structure in a greenfield, parkland area – no than you Care UK – take it to Barnes Hospital or somewhere more relevant with plenty of parking, access etc., along the A34 9near John Lewis)

    Sam (Cheadle resident for 73 years)

  8. Samantha S says:

    Absolutely agree! No one seems to have a good word to say about this CareUK company, certainly not the type of business we want to bring to Cheadle and definately not to Abney. I’ve seen this all before when we lived in Battersea some years ago, we had a delightful park which developers then gained planning to build a private GP walk-in arm. That was eight years ago and now the place is shut down and derelict so not only does it look an eye-sore, the small piece of green space has gone forever. Don’t let these corporate giants do this to Abney, no matter what they say today and no matter had good their intentions, they won’t commit to any long term guarantees and once planing is consented to, this will be the start of bigger things to come!!!

  9. Mr P Hollingsworth says:

    No I am also not in favour of this planned proposal, people including the Cheadle Civic Society seem to have tunnel vision, this development in Abney Hall Cheadle will be the start to the end for the village, the Cheadle Civic Society have recently published a document in support of this care home but can not even get their facts right as this company ‘Care UK’ are not a charity by any means, they are a for profit organisation who provide the lowest paid jobs. I urge all Cheadle villagers to strongly appose the siting of this care home in Abney Hall, I for the life of me can not understand why they wish to build this here in Abney, why not utilise the space available near to the Village Hotel chain?

    Mr P Hollingsworth

  10. […] in April we told you about the proposals for a new care home behind Abney Hall in Cheadle – to be run by Care […]

  11. […] Here are the plans Care UK came forward with back then. […]

  12. Gaynor W says:

    So the long waited planning application has been lodged, a toned-down version by all means but find it hard to find what parts have been? Bruntwood are planning on funding the build of this venture as part of their new business proposition, only last week they published end-of-year fiscals detailing pre-tax profits of over £12m. On this basis, and the basis that Bruntwood initially to purchase Abney Hall, they are legally responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the hall, not the council. How will turning the office bloc k into a residential care home benefit the actual hall? It should be the actual hall that is in question here and not the newer build office block. If the care home was built, and then subsequently Abney Hall is let, where do the office workers in Abney Hall park their cars (as the current main car park in the newer office building would be developed for the care home?). I don’t think this looks good, very short sightedness here and obviously all about shareholder profits rather than what is good for and what the local community wants. Of course we want and need jobs, who doesn’t, but these will be practically the lowest paid jobs. And what happens in the future when Bruntwood decide to change their mind again? What would happen to a practically glass eyesore building slap bang in the middle of beautiful parkland? What about demolition and building development for the new proposed care home, eighteen months of mess, noise, pollution and disturbance. Has anyone thought about the detrimental effect on wildlife? I don’t means bats but all the other types of natural nature that live in Abney. The planning goes on to build a two metre wide pathway through the parkland, just so staff can access the building, when there is already and wide pathway from the road to the buildings. I thought Bruntwood only owned the buildings but now it appears they want to develop the parkland too?! We never wanted the new office block built all those years ago but no one listened. And look, we were right, it is now unused and standing empty. Care UKs reports (as detailed on the planning application) on road traffic are totally inaccurate too suggesting just one RTA in recent years along Manchester Road, when in in fact there are many each year, in fact the most recent almost directly outside the main entrance to Abney Hall totally wrote off the road signage (which is now conned off and still awaiting replacement). A similar proposal to build a 80 bed care home in Shropshire anticipates over 200 vehicle movements each day. Over 6,000 each month. If I lived in the cottages next to this planned development I would not be happy. And what about the other neighbours who live along Manchester Road and all those people and families who take their families to the park. I think we need to show support to oppose this application, has anyone thought of an official petition, raising some awareness? Maybe a rally?! And why aren’t the council supporting local people’s views? Is this always just about money? And the Lib Dems too? The last election in Cheadle and Gatley was so close, I think you should look at what the majority of local people want and act accordingly to these views. The private school application some years back was disastrous too, and the planners supported local community views and decided it was not good for Abney Hall. This is not good for Abney Hall either, clearly you can see this and read between the misguided information that Bruntwood and Care UK are communicating.

  13. Iain Roberts says:

    Thanks Gaynor – you can be sure we’re listening to all the comments about the proposals.

  14. dave cowhig says:

    i totally agree with the previous comments of gaynor the through traffic and building work will have a demonstrable effect on the park and wild life,the biggest grey area for me and concern is the change in use of the land from office to residential,is this the thin edge of the wedge to see 24 hr use and possible further residential developent the slow creep of urbanisation needs to be checked as open green area is fast dissappearing.

  15. Jean Goulden says:

    Abney Hall Park is a much loved and well used local green space. It is particularly well loved because it is a natural, green space and there are very few of these types of spaces that remain – particularly in urban areas where the local community can access them. It is a well documented fact that green spaces are vital to public well being as well, if not more importantly, to the protection and enhancement of the wider ecology and wild life. The Council has a responsibility to protect and enhance this environment rather than view it as any other commercial space.
    Abney is a Local Nature Reserve and a Site of Special Biological Interest, particularly for its rare wet lands. Green spaces, particularly ones of such rareity should be protected at all costs and not allowed to be exploited for commercial gain. The modern design of the proposed care home would have a harmful effect upon the visual impact, status and grandeur of this grade 11* listed building that is Abney Hall and its historic importance. It would detrementally impact upon this historically important building. The time taken to demolish and rebuild could have a devastating impact upon the wild life in the park which includes some rare species. As the Government says: Our natural environment is ‘essential to our well being’ and should be protected against exploitation for purely commercial gain.

  16. Keri France says:

    As a local resident who enjoys this local nature reserve, I echo the sentiments of the objectors. It is unfathomable to believe that such a proposal for a Care Home has been even conceived, let alone is being mooted!

    A law should be put in place to protect this wonderful park, so that no other building plan can ever happen in the future.

    I will be signing the petition and supporting the friends of Abney Hall Park wholeheartedly on this destructive proposal.

  17. James Clark says:

    I am a local business owner who’s livelihood will be directly affected by these plans and yet at no point
    have I been contacted or consulted with regards to this planning application, by any party involved.

    I am only aware of this after noticing a very damp and smudged noticed attached a park lamp post and
    after further conversation with the Friends of Abney Hall group.

    For just short of two years, I have been increasing positive usage of the park space and introducing
    people to this wonderful park through the creation of a local fitness class community. This was
    arranged with the council two years ago, to whom I pay a regular licence fee for this use.

    Since starting this business, we have been keeping local residents fit in their local park and have trained
    well over a thousand different individuals and as of August 2012, had over 300 regular local members.
    We pay the council to run classes everyday and in the initial agreement had permission to use the
    parking by the hall itself.

    I am thoroughly disappointed that this has been completely overlooked during the planning application
    and gives me great cause for concern as to the position of my business going forwards and how other
    main users of the park will be treated in future.

    Whilst I am definitely not against the building of care homes, I cannot see how this site, with it’s
    history, wildlife and community usage is suited to this project. With the wetlands and ponds, how this
    would be safe for residents I don’t know.

    Abney Hall park truly is a centre for this community. It is well used and well loved, with a proactive friends group, scouts and guides, families (especially during the summer) as well as ourselves and other community organisations.

    Looking at the plans, the suggested building is completely out of character of the existing site and
    is sure to overlook residents in the cottages behind, who are also sure to have their property values
    plummet as well as their private estate overlooked. Not to mention access issues. The current construction is sympathetic with the Hall, but these new designs are completely out of character with the site.

    Such a large project is going to take considerable heavy plant, affecting current public access to the
    park completely. The entrance and road will need to be widened, which guarantee the park will be
    affected. Trees will be felled, protected green space WILL be affected. And with the proposed plans aiming to fill the current footprint of the walled perimeter, this
    means the construction boundary itself will need to be a much larger area, which WILL affect the
    current natural state and use of the park. Even with the current boundary been owned privately, the affect on the protected greenspace cannot be ignored.

    Having not been called in for consultation on this at all, I can also foresee a future where my own
    position in the park would come under threat. The fact that I rely on this park for my livelihood has
    already been overlooked and to lose the right to do what I pay to do currently would be the second
    worst thing that could happen to me, only worsted by someone dying. I rely on this business to pay my
    mortgage and to live and my clientele attend at Abney due to a number of factors, a commanding one being it’s position within the community. And the above is justmy own example. I am not the only community group that relies on the current careful balance that exists in this community park.

    With the site being developed, we wouldn’t have access to our current parking areas. A huge portion
    of the park would now be cut off from us. We have experimented with parking by the scout and guides
    centre but the single track lane has proven inadequate for cars coming in and out and the car park too
    small for all park users. The road in is unlit and therefore dangerous at night time. Even if the public car park at the main entrance to the park at Manchester road
    was developed to be suitable (which is currently isn’t) health and safety would make it impossible for
    park users to access the park from that location, with heavy plant moving in and out. As a result, public access to much of the park will be severely impaired.

    Our fitness classes are fun and team orientated. Upon the completion of the site, even with promises
    of normality resuming, I can foresee a situation where there would be reluctance to coexist with this
    small, community business. I have no assurances to the contrary so far as my involvement with this
    park has been completely overlooked.

    In addition, with the plans being residential, it opens the floodgates for further residential development in the future.

    As for current use of the buildings,there is an obvious reluctance to make these accessible for local business and the community. I have enquired many times about the use of office space and been fobbed off. This apathy combined with astronomical rates… no wonder the buildings currently stand empty.

    With all this and more considered, I severely object to the planning application and would appreciate
    personal invitation to future consultations considering this has a massive impact on my life.

  18. Dr Sian Segar says:

    I am a regular user of the park and object to these proposals for the same reasons that Mr James Clark, I.Parker and others give above.
    This may of course mean that I’m biased because I wish to keep this wonderful oasis of wetlands for my own enjoyment ( and that of my friends and family), which I do. But as pointed out above there are plenty of other locations within this area that could serve better for this purpose, in particular the already mentioned Barnes hospital site which is currently lying derelict. Care UK is a powerful healthcare provider (currently responsible for many of Manchester’s NHS contracts) and shouldn’t be allowed to bulldoze its way through our precious park.

  19. Lois Evans says:

    Please do not destroy this splendid green area which is used regularly by so many for leisure activites. The wetlands, trees and wildlife are for everyone to enjoy and are so scarce in urban areas. It will be a scandal to destroy all this for a base profit motive – surely brown field sites could be chosen such as Barnes hospital site?
    Once Abney park and Hall have polluted in this way it will be gone forever. Please join the campaign to stop this vandalism

  20. Iain Roberts says:

    I should make clear – without prejudging the application – that this proposal is to replace the existing office block behind Abney Hall, within the walled area. It does not involve any building on the existing parkland.

    Lois – there is another application coming forward for Barnes Hospital.

  21. John Kelsaw says:

    Sorry guys but the last comment from Iain Roberts is incorrect.

    Whilst the proposal is to replace the existing office block which sits inside the listed walled garden, it will also effect further building on the site as there is a separate application to develop and make larger the lower car park upon the immediate entrance to the hall.

    Not only this, as the applicant has also applied to develop this car park, extending onto some of the current green space, then build a two metre wide path from this car park, cutting through further green belt, through woodland into the front of Abney Hall, cutting down trees/established large plantation.

    For confirmation on this, see SMBC planning website. There are indeed two planning applications, see DC/051715 and DC/051716. Both submitted by Care UK/Bruntwood.

    Having read through pages of hefty planning documentation, the main issues with this are, (1) Care UK propose that the current planned care home build will have adequate car parking facilities for staff, patients, visitors, deliveries, suppliers etc., so I would certainly question why they intend to build a separate, larger car park with path way to the care home? (2) a pathway this wide and leading onto the front/main lawn area of Abney Hall would make a fabulous access spot for travellers. (3) There seems to be little/no consideration for what local people of Cheadle want, no consultation with these people of groups in terms of the wildlife/habitat etc. The initial consultation over a year ago now, was simply undertaken to build into the planning application that the developer had seeked local community thoughts, but no further consultation, or commitment to repairing/maintaining/improving parkland has been undertaken. As a for-profit, private organisation, Care UK don’t appear to have any regard for the local community, or current park uses by individuals, families, groups and businesses, they appear see their c£900/week residential home as income generation to further fill their investors (Bridgepoint) pockets. (4) The current planning permission is for office space, ie: office hours during weekday use. The care home application would be 24/7/365 days use, with over 200 vehicle movements each day once the build is completed.

    The true worry here is that this will set a president. 30 years ago, when the planning was passed for the new office block in Abney, is that if a care home project was passed, how long before Care UK, or a similar healthcare giant, need a secondary support business on the Abney estate? We already have the private BMI Alex hospital, then a care home, before you know it it will be a healthcare runway stretching form Cheadle to Parrswood.

    There of course is a need to evolve, but Bruntwood should look to open the hall for other uses as well as office space; weddings, destination venue … projects that can be accessed by the public/local community.

    And to further clarify, the proposal for Barnes Hospital is nothing to do with this application, it is a totally separate residential build by a different developer. That doesn’t stop the fact that the Barnes hospital site could have/still can be seen as as a possible site for a care home, but Care UK/Bruntwood have their sights firmly set on Abney.

    Just thought I would clear things up so there is no confusion or biased towards the planned build at Abney and to communicate exactly what is being planned.

  22. Iain Roberts says:

    Sorry, John, I should have been clearer.

    The only building proposed to be constructed as part of these applications is the care home within the walled garden.

    There is no proposal to construct a new building elsewhere on the park.

    In addition, as you rightly say, and as it detailed in the planning application which I’ve published on this site (http://iainroberts.mycouncillor.org.uk/2013/03/28/cheadle-area-committee-agenda-9th-april-2013/).

    Regarding your query about why expanding the car park is part of the application, that is clearly explained in the application itself (it’s so Abney Hall itself has sufficient car parking spaces if it were to re-open as offices, which it can of course do at any time without further planning permission).

    It’s worth reading through that. As always with planning applications, we have a legal duty to decide on the basis of whether or not the proposal meets national and local planning policy and there are often objections to planning applications which, whilst they may be very sensible and reasonable, cannot legally be considered. In opposing or supporting any planning application, it’s important to identify ways in which the application breeches planning policy – the rules on planning are very clear that applications should be granted unless they can be shown to go against policy.

  23. Stephanie Sankey says:

    I, too, agree with all the above comments opposing these nonsensical plans to demolish the existing building in order to build a new care home in Abney Hall Park.

    I am a regular user of this gem of a green space through my leisure activities with Bioticfit and also when I walk my dog. I just cannot understand how this project will benefit anyone but Care UK. The construction process will damage the park, its wildlife and will create a detrimental amount of traffic in and out of the park itself, 24/7.

  24. Stephanie Sankey says:

    I believe Care UK/Bruntwood should be supplying an Environmental Statement (ES) and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) application along with their plans. Has this been done and could these please be publicised?

    “The list of aspects of the environment which might be significantly affected by a project is
    set out in paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 4, and includes human beings; flora; fauna; soil;
    water; air; climate; landscape; material assets, including architectural and archaeological
    heritage; and the interaction between any of the foregoing. Paragraph 4 of Part I of Schedule 4
    indicates, among other things, that consideration should also be given to the likely significant
    effects resulting from use of natural resources, the emission of pollutants, the creation of
    nuisances and the elimination of waste. In addition to the direct effects of a development, the
    ES should also cover indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term,
    permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects. These are comprehensive lists, and a
    particular project may of course give rise to significant effects, and require full and detailed
    assessment, in only one or two respects.”

    Extract from Circular 02/99: Environmental impact
    assessment

  25. John Kelsaw says:

    Iain,

    Yes, I have read the separate planning application for the car park but I think you have not and have missed a very large point here. If the planning is given the go ahead for the care home, this will take over one hundred car parking spaces. When Abney Hall/Abney Court was let as office space, even Bruntwood state they had many hundred workers employed within.

    Bruntwood do not intend to reopen Abney Hall as office space, they intend to open it as a conference centre – it’s worth reading the whole content of the planning applications, many, many pages, I have read them all.

    So, by creating an additional 20 or so car parking spaces (which takes green belt land), this will by far not be adequate when, as by Bruntwood’s own admissions, Abney Hall is planned to by converted into a conference centre. Conference Centres of this magnitude require many hundred car parking facilities and so the parkland and local area will be overrun with vehicles, as the large majority of attendees toe conferences/meetings travel by car.

    So, if you are saying that there is a legal duty to decide on the basis of whether or not the proposal meets national and local planning policy and that the local communities feelings and considerations have no impact, solely that planning applications are only granted unless they can be shown to go against policy then this is totally wrong. Why bother to go to the lengths of consultation, inviting responses from the local community if the bottom line can not be impacted upon.

    One word, corruption! This is clearly all it can be. A giant like Care UK obviously has contacts higher up the chain then our local councillors (who seem unwilling to support the local community), there are no positive responses in favour of this application, over 20 objections against it and many hundreds who have signed the petition objecting against it – roll on council elections!

    I, and many others, will be writing to our MP on this issue as there is something totally wrong. We have been smelling a rat over the past few weeks, and the further one dig’s into this whole mess, the stronger the smell gets.

  26. Iain Roberts says:

    Hi John,

    There is a very important point here: any planning application has to be judged on its own merits.

    The Council must legally judge what’s being applied for now, not what someone might also apply for in future.

    Were Bruntwood to want to convert Abney Hall into a conference centre, they would need additional planning permission and it would be at that point that they would need to make the case around traffic and car parking.

    You also ask about why the planning system is set up as it is. I can’t really answer that – it’s been this way for at least 60 years. Applications have to be decided on whether or not they agree with policy.

    Objections from residents are important in raising areas of policy which the application might conflict with. Simply the fact that you or I might object to an application has no weight in planning law unless our objection has a basis in planning policy.

  27. B Jones says:

    There is also an application to increase parking to the site as a whole by Bruntwood under application number DC/051716, presumably this would only be needed to supplement the insufficient parking outlined in the CareUK plans.

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>