New Planning Application at former Church St Garage (Nr Bridge 2)

[Duke Fame]

I heard that at the Area Committee MCS and Councillor Ingham were unable to make their case against effectively. You can't just refuse a planning application because you don't want it. You have to have  planning grounds for doing so and they didn't have any so MBC's planning officer shot them both down in flames.

I for one am a little bit tired of unelected bodies telling me what's good for me. Why Marple Civic Society thinks that it represents the views of people in Marple I just can't fathom. I think that MCS should ask themselves how many people there are in Marple and how many members they've got. That should tell them something

That little development looks o.k. to me, people need houses and it's much better than a piece of scrag land. So I don't see a problem.

I think these small bodies are useful if they can speed processes up, in this case the process just seems to have yet another layer of objection.

On the face of it, like Simone, I just see a very acceptable set of small houses that, although may not appeal to me personally, i can see a market / demand for such a dwelling.

[Duke Fame]

I've not heard that before Duke. You could be right of course but I can't think why that rule would apply. Do you know why? 

I have no idea if it's a rule but if it were my house, I'd like the garden on the canal side. As Dave says, further up the canal, there is a road in between but i doubt that's neither here nor there.

had these houses been built in the canal's hey day, I'd have thought they would have been similar in size.

It does seem to be a fuss about very little.

[Dave]

Interesting question, although off the top of my head I can't think of anywhere where there are existing houses fronting directly on to a canal towpath - as opposed to across a road, as at Lockside.

But then I'm not convinced that these people at MCS know very much about architecture, even though their listed committee officers include a 'hon architect'.  For example, their letter of opposition to the development claims that these houses are three storey, not two-and-a-half storey, as described in the planning application.  But any architect will tell you that one-and-a-half or two-and-a-half storey means that the 'half storey' is inside the pitched roof area, with dormer or velux windows, which is indeed the case with these houses.

[simonesaffron]

I've not heard that before Duke. You could be right of course but I can't think why that rule would apply. Do you know why? 

[Duke Fame]

I have just taken the time to read MCS letter of objection. I do agree with their observation about the fronting of the houses and it is a mystery to me why they don't front-face the water, but the rest of their argument seems to be their opinion and their assertion. I am not an expert but I couldn't find one thing that was actually planning policy.

As well as this some of it is misleading, in particular example of this is their comment about the houses being three-storey. To me this is untrue. The roofline hasn't changed, there is no dormer, the ridge height is the same as an ordinary house,the eaves height is the same. It is a two - storey house with accommodation in the roof space it is not three-storey.

So if their is anybody out there from MCS reading this. Why are you telling people this in your letter? I would be interested to know. As a rule I support neighbourhood organisations of all kinds but I'm not going to support one that misleads people, there are enough politicians around to do that.      

I thought every house along that part of the canal, be it a terraced house or an rather posher detached have the rear garden facing the canal.

[Duke Fame]

Given the near-derelict condition of that stretch of canal, combined with the chronic homelessness which besets this country at the moment, it's quite shameful that this group of individuals - unelected, as Simone points out - should oppose the scheme.  

But the given the past campaigns backed by the Civic Society, I guess we should not expect any better.  

I agree with you here Dave, the objection on their site was that the houses were bland. I thought the requirement was that they were not to look out of place. It seems there is a lot of fuss about 5 perfectly functional and relatively affordable homes being build on a brownfield site.

[Dave]

How many members do MCS actually have, does anybody know?

The population of Marple is approximately 23,500.  283 is just over 1% of that.  But that doesn't seem to stop them claiming to speak on behalf of the remaining 99%.   

[Harry]

How many members do MCS actually have, does anybody know?

From the MCS committee meeting minutes of July 2014 (accessible from http://www.marplecivicsociety.org.uk/News.html):

"Current membership stands at 283 plus 11 corporate members."

[simonesaffron]

That's a good point you make there Salex.

How many members do MCS actually have, does anybody know?

[simonesaffron]

I have just taken the time to read MCS letter of objection. I do agree with their observation about the fronting of the houses and it is a mystery to me why they don't front-face the water, but the rest of their argument seems to be their opinion and their assertion. I am not an expert but I couldn't find one thing that was actually planning policy.

As well as this some of it is misleading, in particular example of this is their comment about the houses being three-storey. To me this is untrue. The roofline hasn't changed, there is no dormer, the ridge height is the same as an ordinary house,the eaves height is the same. It is a two - storey house with accommodation in the roof space it is not three-storey.

So if their is anybody out there from MCS reading this. Why are you telling people this in your letter? I would be interested to know. As a rule I support neighbourhood organisations of all kinds but I'm not going to support one that misleads people, there are enough politicians around to do that.      

[Dave]

Given the near-derelict condition of that stretch of canal, combined with the chronic homelessness which besets this country at the moment, it's quite shameful that this group of individuals - unelected, as Simone points out - should oppose the scheme. 

But the given the past campaigns backed by the Civic Society, I guess we should not expect any better.   

[Salex]

The proposed houses will look much better than the scruffy land there currently. We need more houses and sites like this are ideal. After all, it's what we need to do if we want to protect green belt areas from development. The unelected MSC seem to always find it appropriate to object to planning applications. I wonder what percentage of the town are members of the MSC?

[amazon]

I heard that at the Area Committee MCS and Councillor Ingham were unable to make their case against effectively. You can't just refuse a planning application because you don't want it. You have to have  planning grounds for doing so and they didn't have any so MBC's planning officer shot them both down in flames.

I for one am a little bit tired of unelected bodies telling me what's good for me. Why Marple Civic Society thinks that it represents the views of people in Marple I just can't fathom. I think that MCS should ask themselves how many people there are in Marple and how many members they've got. That should tell them something

That little development looks o.k. to me, people need houses and it's much better than a piece of scrag land. So I don't see a problem.

Agree for once have canceled my membership of the civic society ...

[simonesaffron]

I heard that at the Area Committee MCS and Councillor Ingham were unable to make their case against effectively. You can't just refuse a planning application because you don't want it. You have to have  planning grounds for doing so and they didn't have any so MBC's planning officer shot them both down in flames.

I for one am a little bit tired of unelected bodies telling me what's good for me. Why Marple Civic Society thinks that it represents the views of people in Marple I just can't fathom. I think that MCS should ask themselves how many people there are in Marple and how many members they've got. That should tell them something

That little development looks o.k. to me, people need houses and it's much better than a piece of scrag land. So I don't see a problem.

[admin]

This planning application was considered at Marple Area Committee on Wednesday:

http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=120969

According to the Civic Society web site "The Civic Society strongly opposed the application on the grounds of overdevelopment (amongst others). Sadly, only Cllr Ingham was prepared to refuse the application.  Cllrs Alexander, Candler and Abell voted to send the application to the SMBC Planning and Highways Committee without a recommendation."

Read the Civic Society's report in full here: http://www.marplecivicsociety.org.uk/News.html

You can also read the Civic Society's letter of objection: https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=5AE1C34D7E844FFF&resid=5AE1C34D7E844FFF!774&app=WordPdf

Looks like it hangs in the balance with 11 responses for and and 11 against recorded on the Planning Portal.

The consultation period is still open at the moment so if you live nearby, or feel strongly one way or the other about it, then there may be a little time to make your thoughts know.