Keith, Graham and Iain

Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle & Gatley Learn more

What’s coming up at Cheadle Area Committee, 14th July 2015

by Iain Roberts on 7 July, 2015

Cheadle Area Committee is next Tuesday, 14th July. It’s at the Ladybridge Park Residents Club, Edenbridge Road, Cheadle Hulme. As always it starts at 6pm and it’s an open meeting – everyone is welcome.

On this month’s agenda:

  • Planning application 56819 – new house proposed for 9 Rodmill Drive, Gatley. Planning officers recommend refusal.
  • Planning application 57942 – application to split 22 Cranston Grove granny flat into a separate dwelling. Planning officers recommend granting for a trial period of one year.
  • Planning application 58710 – application to convert Bruntwood Hall into boutique hotel. We previously rejected this on the grounds of insufficient parking but there has since been work done which should provide enough parking. Officers recommend that, in effect, we say to officers “yes this can go ahead as long as the applicant agree to pay the extra money we want to improve the park”.
  • Planning application 58745 – extension and improvements to 12 Mill Lane, Cheadle Hulme to accommodate the needs of a seriously disabled resident. No objections received, but has to go through committee because it’s in the green belt. Officers recommend grant.
  • Update on planning enforcement action in the area, including notification that a prosecution is now pending over the owners of 2 Massie Street, Cheadle failing to replace the inappropriate windows in a property in the conservation area.
  • Proposal for double-yellow lines at the junction of Broadway and Barcheston Road, Cheadle.
  • Proposal to take money from past planning applications and allocate it to improving play areas: £12,700 for Bruntwood Park, £1,840 for Diamond Jubilee Park and £1,171 for Gatley Rec. The money goes into a pot for each park, to be spent when there’s enough to do something useful with it.
  • Application for a further lease for Abney Hall Park Cafe – officers are recommending a one year lease and this is for comment from the committee.
  • Application from Cheadle Civic Society to run Makers’ Markets in September, October and November.
  • Application for another Bark in the Park event at Abney Park – this year on 20th September

   6 Comments

6 Responses

  1. Alan Gent says:

    Iain, will the entrance and exit be via Schools Hill? If so this will put added pressure on an already hard pressed stretch of road.

  2. Halifax says:

    Convert Bruntwood Hall into boutique hotel – “yes this can go ahead as long as the applicant agree to pay the extra money we want to improve the park”.

    This sounds to be like a bribe! Planning permission should be granted on whether this proposal is a good and sound proposal, not on whether they can afford to pay a bribe.

    How many other planning applications will be approved if the applicants are prepared to ‘pay for ‘improvements?’ Improvements that I assumed by Council Tax would be funding

  3. Iain Roberts says:

    Alan – access will be via either entrance, as today for the building.

    Halifax – this is a normal part of the planning process and has been for decades. The principle is that if a development puts extra pressure on public services, there should be some financial contribution to cover it. It’s normally through what are called “section 106 agreements” although a new “Community Infrastructure Levy” (CIL) is starting to replace those.

  4. Halifax says:

    Iain – I understand what a 106 agreement is. In my view they are sometimes to used to sweeten the deal, so that plans that the public don’t really want can be agreed because the developers pay the Council a shed load of money.

    Unfortunately in most cases the development will still be in place many years after the money has been spent

    Presumably based on your logic any housing extension that will increase the number of bedrooms to a house is increasing pressure on public services, so why do they not attract a S106?

    I accept that the hotel will attract more people to the park, but surely any additional ‘pressure’ that creates (if any) will be more then made up for by the business rates.

    To me this S106 sounds like a ‘bung’ – the Planning request is either sound or it isn’t.

    On balance I would have though this particular development is beneficial (with or without the bung)

  5. Halifax says:

    ‘Iain, will the entrance and exit be via Schools Hill? If so this will put added pressure on an already hard pressed stretch of road.’

    Alan – every through road in Cheadle is already fit to burst – however the Council will continue to give the nod to housing developments throughout Stockport – many of whose residents will need to commute using the roads of Cheadle – but so long as they ‘bung’ the Council some money via the S106 it’s OK.

    I will add that whatever happens to Barnes Hospital will be a nightmare for the Gateley Junction and thus the residents of this area, but I’m sure the money paid via the S106 will smooth the way.

    • Trevor Gaunt says:

      With regards to Halifax’s last item, the problem with the Kingsway / Gatley Road junction was significantly exacerbated by the opening of the Handforth / Wilmslow by-pass, which – please correct me if I am mistaken – was partly funded by the Cheadle Royal shopping development (S106 again). Perhaps the Barnes Hospital developer has something to offer, which may “sweeten” that deal.

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>