Issue - meetings

12/0127M-Mixed Use Development of Assisted Living Residential Apartments (61 no.) and a Cafe, Both With Associated Landscaping and Servicing. Undercroft Parking is Provided for Residents. Existing Office Block to be Demolished, Land at Park Green,

Meeting: 07/11/2012 - Northern Planning Committee (Item 68)

68 12/0127M-Mixed Use Development of Assisted Living Residential Apartments (61 no.) and a Cafe, Both With Associated Landscaping and Servicing. Undercroft Parking is Provided for Residents. Existing Office Block to be Demolished, Land at Park Green, Park Street, Macclesfield, Cheshire for Mr Alistair Watson pdf icon PDF 662 KB

To consider the above application.

Minutes:

Consideration was given to the above application.

 

(Mr Megginson, an objector attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application.  In addition a statement by the Ward Councillor Mrs J Jackson was read out by the Northern Area Manager).

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

 

  1. The proposal fails to preserve or enhance Park Green and High Street Conservation Areas by virtue of the design, scale and mass of the proposed development failing to respond to the topography of the site and the positive characteristics of the Conservation Areas and not respecting the scale of buildings on Park Street. Contrary to NPPF and local plan policies for design and conservation. The identified harm to a heritage asset is a legitimate reason for restricting development under paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

 

  1. Notwithstanding the Town Centre location of the site, insufficient resident parking is provided within the site to adequately serve the development. The development would be detrimental to the interests of highway safety through an increase in parking taking place in unsuitable locations on the highway, taking account of the nature of the proposed development, the location of the site and the predicted number of parked vehicles arising from the development, which is considered to be significantly greater than the 20 spaces provided for. This is considered to be an adverse impact that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed redevelopment of the site.

 

(This decision was contrary to the Officers recommendation of approval).