Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: admin on December 17, 2014, 12:38:26 PM
-
Local folk and especially Compstall residents may be interested in the details of a Residential Development Site that has just come up for sale.
It also contains some details of the proposed development of the Compstall Mill site that may be of interest.
A pdf version is available here: www.marple-uk.com/misc/compstall-12-2014.pdf
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Local folk and especially Compstall residents may be interested in the details of a Residential Development Site that has just come up for sale.
It also contains some details of the proposed development of the Compstall Mill site that may be of interest.
A pdf version is available here: www.marple-uk.com/misc/compstall-12-2014.pdf
Will be a good thing it needs sorting out its a mess .waiting to see what becomes of the george pub thats for sale ,
-
So why no affordable housing (something rather unpleasant about that boast)? Surely affordable houses are needed that young people and families can have a realistic opportunity to buy in Compstall as much as anywhere else?
It looks nice enough a development but it doesn't look too hopeful that these properties will be much different from many new developments which are small, crammed together and with postage stamps as gardens.
-
I agree with Middlewood that a scheme apparently promoting itself with the phrase "No affordable housing" seems distinctly unpleasant.
Since one of the later paragraphs (bottom of page 2) says "There is no affording housing ..." [sic] it hasn't been proof-read very well, either.
-
"No affordable housing" seems distinctly unpleasant.
Indeed. As if to say (in the nicest possible way) 'it's OK, you won't be living near poor people......' ::)
-
So why no affordable housing (something rather unpleasant about that boast)? Surely affordable houses are needed that young people and families can have a realistic opportunity to buy in Compstall as much as anywhere else?
It looks nice enough a development but it doesn't look too hopeful that these properties will be much different from many new developments which are small, crammed together and with postage stamps as gardens.
Also curious why no affordable housing provision.
Looking at SMBC's own Planning Obligation Paper (http://www.stockport.gov.uk/2013/2994/developmentcontrol/16189/affordablehousingguide) it says "Proposed housing development sites containing 15 or more dwellings..... the Council will negotiate to ensure that 35% of the total number of dwellings to be built on the site is classified as being ‘affordable’ (this figure is reduced to 17.5% for housing developments in Stockport town centre). However, if this percentage would hinder the achievement of other planning objectives on the development site, then the Council may be willing to reduce the amount of affordable housing provision if special circumstances apply."
-
Also curious why no affordable housing provision.
The brochure says that the Planning Application for this is DC055286, which is currently recorded as being in the consultation period on the Planning Portal. Maybe that is because negotiations on S106 contributions are ongoing (as the brochure mentions):
http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=120763 (http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=120763)
A quick trawl through it shows that it's the second application on the site, the first being withdrawn. In the current application planning documents is a Supporting Planning Statement that concludes under Planning Obligations that:
3.2.12
In summary, the conclusion of the Economic Viability Assessment undertaken in November 2013 was that, under current market conditions, the proposed development would not be a financially viable proposal if levied with the requirement to provide for any level of affordable housing or additional S106 contributions. There has been little or no improvement in market conditions in the last six months that would improve the viability position of the development proposal. It therefore remains the position of the Applicant at the point of submitting the revised application, that the development proposal still cannot sustain a levy to provide affordable housing or other S106 contributions.
There's a lot more documentation on the Planning Portal and it is probably worth reading everything fully if you are really interested in the detail of this development.
-
" It therefore remains the position of the Applicant at the point of submitting the revised application, that the development proposal still cannot sustain a levy to provide affordable housing or other S106 contributions."
Well now, there's a surprise! ;)
-
" It therefore remains the position of the Applicant at the point of submitting the revised application, that the development proposal still cannot sustain a levy to provide affordable housing or other S106 contributions."
Well now, there's a surprise! ;)
Yes of course they would say that wouldn't they. But it's the council's job to decide whether to accept it or not. The brochure implies that they've accepted no affordable housing but are still working on the S106 contribution. The S106 contribution (if one is agreed) would generally go towards improving children's play in the immediate area. Perhaps worth asking the Planning Contact on the application for an explanation of the council position?
-
Yes of course they would say that wouldn't they. But it's the council's job to decide whether to accept it or not. The brochure implies that they've accepted no affordable housing but are still working on the S106 contribution. The S106 contribution (if one is agreed) would generally go towards improving children's play in the immediate area. Perhaps worth asking the Planning Contact on the application for an explanation of the council position?
In this case it's probably largely true though. I would imagine that the costs of preparing the site will significantly higher than average.
-
industrial printing works hahaha
-
industrial printing works hahaha
What does that mean? Are you suggesting that there wasn't an industrial printing works on this site?
-
At a previous presentation by a company considering a similar scheme I asked about car parking. I was told the area would be a mixture of small businesses and residential homes and their plan was that when the residents went to work the parking spaces would then be occupied by the business workers so no impact on the surrounding roads. Who thought up that idea? I also asked where I would store my surfboard? This comflummoxed the representative totally, but living in Compstall where most cars are left on the road and even those with garages use the garages as storage space as generally they aren't big enough for a car, I felt this was an issue that really needed thinking about. Perhaps they did and had no answer so gave up.
-
Wishful thinking - It would be quite useful if SMBC could make it a condition of PP that the developers funded the widening of the bridge over the river (in a sympathetic style, of course).
-
At a previous presentation by a company considering a similar scheme I asked about car parking. I was told the area would be a mixture of small businesses and residential homes and their plan was that when the residents went to work the parking spaces would then be occupied by the business workers so no impact on the surrounding roads. Who thought up that idea? I also asked where I would store my surfboard? This comflummoxed the representative totally, but living in Compstall where most cars are left on the road and even those with garages use the garages as storage space as generally they aren't big enough for a car, I felt this was an issue that really needed thinking about. Perhaps they did and had no answer so gave up.
The original plans which were published some years ago and shown in St Thomas's included a water wheel and various other nice things in keeping with Etherow country park. But that company went out of business. Not sure if these are the fourth development co to have a go. Don't think the original mill is being developed ....isn't it a listed building. ....
-
A series of photos of the site provided by Bill Beard have been uploaded to the Virtual Tour showing why this development is probably a good idea:
http://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/thumbnails.php?album=lastup&cat=-26
(http://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/albums/userpics/10002/compstall-printworks-3.jpg)
-
For information...
Conservation Area Appraisal, on the Stockport Council website, for Compstall, designated 1974, extended 1990 & 2006, reviewed 2012, gives listed buildings etc.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/environment/planningbuilding/conservationheritage/conservationareas/conservationareaappraisalsmanagementplans/compstall (http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/environment/planningbuilding/conservationheritage/conservationareas/conservationareaappraisalsmanagementplans/compstall)
Martin Cruickshank
-
For information...
Conservation Area Appraisal, on the Stockport Council website, for Compstall, designated 1974, extended 1990 & 2006, reviewed 2012, gives listed buildings etc.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/environment/planningbuilding/conservationheritage/conservationareas/conservationareaappraisalsmanagementplans/compstall (http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/environment/planningbuilding/conservationheritage/conservationareas/conservationareaappraisalsmanagementplans/compstall)
Martin Cruickshank
Good info there.
The proposal does reference the significance (http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=216144) of some of the buildings. Essentially, persuade SMBC to crease (like they may be doing regarding the affordable housing aspect?) and take a few photos before demolishing 'em.
Significant justification will be required if substantial harm or total loss to these assets is proposed and it is recommended that the developer enters
into discussions with Stockport MBC regarding the extent of loss which might be considered acceptable.
A photographic record should be made of the building and of individual features of significance, with the photographic viewpoints recorded on a site plan.
-
Wishful thinking - It would be quite useful if SMBC could make it a condition of PP that the developers funded the widening of the bridge over the river (in a sympathetic style, of course).
Good thought that it is nowhere near wide enough for today's trafic there's room for widening .but of coarse cost will come into it .and then we wil have the enviro people ...
-
it was aglass fibre manufacturer . lots of chemicals dumped
-
By implication does that mean that these houses will be unaffordable? ;)
-
So what, the people that live in these houses will move from other houses that will then come onto the market.
-
it was aglass fibre manufacturer . lots of chemicals dumped
Where were they dumped?
Post fixed - Howard
-
By implication does that mean that these houses will be unaffordable? ;)
I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that new developments had to have a few "affordable" houses as well as "luxury" ones. Or does it depend on the size of the development?
-
Wishful thinking - It would be quite useful if SMBC could make it a condition of PP that the developers funded the widening of the bridge over the river (in a sympathetic style, of course).
Given that the move is from industrial to residential, there surely would be less need for a wide bridge?
It looks a vast improvement on what is there.
-
Given that the move is from industrial to residential, there surely would be less need for a wide bridge?
It looks a vast improvement on what is there.
Regardless of the present or future use of the site the traffic using the main road needs a wider bridge
-
Given that the move is from industrial to residential, there surely would be less need for a wide bridge?
It looks a vast improvement on what is there.
Theres allways been a need for a wider bridge
-
Theres allways been a need for a wider bridge
So why make the bloke who reduces the need pay for it? Weird logic.
-
If not a wider bridge then perhaps a new footbridge on the west side of the existing bridge, so people on this side of Compstall don't need to cross the road twice to get towards Brabyns? Could even then widen the road using the current unpleasant pavement space.
-
If not a wider bridge then perhaps a new footbridge on the west side of the existing bridge, so people on this side of Compstall don't need to cross the road twice to get towards Brabyns? Could even then widen the road using the current unpleasant pavement space.
That idea has worked really well over the canal near the Ring o' Bells.
-
If not a wider bridge then perhaps a new footbridge on the west side of the existing bridge, so people on this side of Compstall don't need to cross the road twice to get towards Brabyns? Could even then widen the road using the current unpleasant pavement space.
I'd say that's a rather unnecessary expense.
-
A few years ago, while maintenance work was going on, there was the equivalent of a footbridge created out of scaffolding. At the time I requested it remain but probably understandably it was dismantled after the work was done however this shows there is the possibility for a footbridge. As has been said the footbridge would enable people on the west side of the bridge to cross the river without having to cross the road. This is of particular use for pedestrians walking between Brabyns Park and Etherow Country Park where a pedestrian refuge makes crossing the road much safer.
-
A few years ago, while maintenance work was going on, there was the equivalent of a footbridge created out of scaffolding. At the time I requested it remain but probably understandably it was dismantled after the work was done however this shows there is the possibility for a footbridge. As has been said the footbridge would enable people on the west side of the bridge to cross the river without having to cross the road. This is of particular use for pedestrians walking between Brabyns Park and Etherow Country Park where a pedestrian refuge makes crossing the road much safer.
Remember that it was a good bridge .
-
Further to putting a footbridge across the River Etherow adjacent to the development besides benefiting people walking between Brabyns Park and Etherow Country Park it would allow residents of the new complex pedestrian access into Brabyns Park without having to cross the road twice, and save the young women who take out charges from the nearby nursery having to cross the busy Compstall Road if they want to take the children into a park. The Council should make it a requirement of planning permission. But if I am allowed a little cynicism they will allow plans to go through with inadequate parking facilities and the nearby roads will get worse than they are already.
-
Regardless of the present or future use of the site the traffic using the main road needs a wider bridge
I very much doubt whether that would be even considered as the bridge is grade 2 listed.
The idea of a complimentary footbridge would be the only way forward, allowing as has already been said, the pavement across the bridge to be removed thus giving a slightly wider bridge.
-
I very much doubt whether that would be even considered as the bridge is grade 2 listed.
The idea of a complimentary footbridge would be the only way forward, allowing as has already been said, the pavement across the bridge to be removed thus giving a slightly wider bridge.
Listing could explain why it's never been widened before.
-
Whether or not it is listed, removing the present pavement to allow traffic to flow faster would probably then result in the residents on Compstall Road calling for road humps to slow the traffic down. But more importantly, having only one footway for pedestrians to cross the river would mean half of them would be required to cross the road twice in order to continue and with greater risk to their lives with the faster flowing traffic.
-
a good solution wold be for the bridge to be single lane with traffic lights.
this would reduce speeding traffic, allow a wider footpath,easy crossing and not affect the out look of the bridge.
-
a good solution wold be for the bridge to be single lane with traffic lights.
this would reduce speeding traffic, allow a wider footpath,easy crossing and not affect the out look of the bridge.
And cause traffic jams .