Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: admin on June 18, 2014, 09:10:56 AM
-
There's a new planning application in for the land next to the canal between Bridge 2 at the Ring o' Bells on Church Lane and New Horizons' base at Marple Wharf:
http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=120969
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It doesn't look too bad a proposal, does it? New Horizons don't appear to be losing their spot. It's about time this eyesore was sorted out (see link). This derelict building is just outside the new plan.
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=swytj5gtvdgr&lvl=17&dir=90&eo=0&sty=x~lat~53.39212~lon~-2.061115~alt~210.087~z~30~h~113.4~p~-4.7~pid~5082&app=5082&FORM=LMLTCC (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=swytj5gtvdgr&lvl=17&dir=90&eo=0&sty=x~lat~53.39212~lon~-2.061115~alt~210.087~z~30~h~113.4~p~-4.7~pid~5082&app=5082&FORM=LMLTCC)
What does everyone else think?
-
I agree - it looks OK.
-
Is this the site of a recent arson attack? See
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/stockport-fires-were-started-deliberately-7280813 (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/stockport-fires-were-started-deliberately-7280813)
-
I agree - it looks OK.
Like you say looks ok 'just depends who the sort of people it's aiming for .
-
They are pretty small, though a bit bigger than they may appear - there is a second floor bedroom with velux windows on the south-east (canal) side. Hopefully they will be 'affordable' for people with young families?
-
They are pretty small, though a bit bigger than they may appear - there is a second floor bedroom with velux windows on the south-east (canal) side. Hopefully they will be 'affordable' for people with young families?
Certainly an improvement and pretty tasteful, if slightly bland. I think I'd like a larger dormer window overlooking the canal it I were buying one. Hopefully they will be aimed at the executive who has a bit of spare cash to spend in the area.
-
They are pretty small, though a bit bigger than they may appear - there is a second floor bedroom with velux windows on the south-east (canal) side. Hopefully they will be 'affordable' for people with young families?
"Young families"? With garden gates which lead directly onto the canal? I don't think so.
-
It doesn't look too bad a proposal, does it? New Horizons don't appear to be losing their spot. It's about time this eyesore was sorted out (see link). This derelict building is just outside the new plan.
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=swytj5gtvdgr&lvl=17&dir=90&eo=0&sty=x~lat~53.39212~lon~-2.061115~alt~210.087~z~30~h~113.4~p~-4.7~pid~5082&app=5082&FORM=LMLTCC (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=swytj5gtvdgr&lvl=17&dir=90&eo=0&sty=x~lat~53.39212~lon~-2.061115~alt~210.087~z~30~h~113.4~p~-4.7~pid~5082&app=5082&FORM=LMLTCC)
What does everyone else think?
Better something useful that a derelict site. The colour of the "brick" work could be a little more sympathetic. I stands out rather. If I was house hunting and had children I would not be looking at one of these due to the proximity of the canal. Anyone who has had toddlers will know how quickly they could be through the gate and into the canal before even the most diligent parent noticed.
-
In terms of building on that land, what would you guys and gals like to see?
-
In terms of building on that land, what would you guys and gals like to see?
Definitely affordable housing but perhaps slightly better designed? The more I look at the photo the more it looks like a barracks and why those nasty artificial concrete-y looking building blocks - why not either red brick or stone to tone in with the area?
-
Definitely affordable housing but perhaps slightly better designed? The more I look at the photo the more it looks like a barracks and why those nasty artificial concrete-y looking building blocks - why not either red brick or stone to tone in with the area?
The stone cladding looks Ok and in keeping to me.
The only negatives are that they look a little plain but if they are being aimed at the 'affordable' market, I suppose costs need to be controlled.
-
You are forgetting the biggest negative of all! The property is immediately adjacent to to an old canal. Do you not remember that the canal wall almost opposite this site completely collapsed onto the towpath about five years ago due to seepage from the cul-de-sac above it. There are houses on Strines Road which are below the level of the canal which have had terrible problems with seepage from the canal and British Waterways make the excuse that the problem is springwater. The canal is old and is a decaying Victorian remnant. It may look very nice at the surface but in places it leaks. Best to keep new property well away. It only needs the slightest disturbance during construction of the new houses to cause the canal wall to fracture.
-
You are forgetting the biggest negative of all! The property is immediately adjacent to to an old canal. Do you not remember that the canal wall almost opposite this site completely collapsed onto the towpath about five years ago due to seepage from the cul-de-sac above it. There are houses on Strines Road which are below the level of the canal which have had terrible problems with seepage from the canal and British Waterways make the excuse that the problem is springwater. The canal is old and is a decaying Victorian remnant. It may look very nice at the surface but in places it leaks. Best to keep new property well away. It only needs the slightest disturbance during construction of the new houses to cause the canal wall to fracture.
I think you will find that much development is done right beside major rivers - I'm sure that the developers can cope with a very shallow canal. They might even be persuaded to strengthen the canal walls.
BTW this canal isn't Victorian (it's actually older).
-
You are forgetting the biggest negative of all! The property is immediately adjacent to to an old canal. Do you not remember that the canal wall almost opposite this site completely collapsed onto the towpath about five years ago due to seepage from the cul-de-sac above it. There are houses on Strines Road which are below the level of the canal which have had terrible problems with seepage from the canal and British Waterways make the excuse that the problem is springwater. The canal is old and is a decaying Victorian remnant. It may look very nice at the surface but in places it leaks. Best to keep new property well away. It only needs the slightest disturbance during construction of the new houses to cause the canal wall to fracture.
As we established in an earlier thread about the development on the old Park & Patt site, the developer will be long gone by the time any newcomers to the area get into those difficulties.
-
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 (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.
-
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 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 ...
-
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?
-
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 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.
-
That's a good point you make there Salex.
How many members do MCS actually have, does anybody know?
-
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 (http://www.marplecivicsociety.org.uk/News.html)):
"Current membership stands at 283 plus 11 corporate members."
-
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%. ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.