Housing for John Street car park?

Cheshire East Council has approved a contentious scheme for John Street, Macclesfield – before the time allowed for public comments had closed.

Knutsford councillor Tony Dean raised the question of whether it was legal to make a decision – as the northern planning committee started discussing the application – prior to the shut-off for public comment.

Planning officer Paul Wakefield said it was as the recommendation ‘to delegate back [to the chair and head of planning] to approve, to allow those additional comments to filter through’.

The application for the two semi-detached homes is on a site used for nearly 40 years by High Street residents as a car park and bin storage.

Ward councillor Ashley Farrall, said: “This application came to committee last month and was recommended for refusal on the grounds the separation distance was only 10.3m.”

“The application today has been recommended for approval, but a separation distance of 10.5m [is] still way below the distance stated in the policy,” he said.

“Now, added to this, the fact that residents’ deeds show there is private right of way access from what is known as the common yard leading to the car park sites”

When constructing new houses, (particularly on an infill or backland plot), consideration must be given to the impact the new structure will have on neighbouring privacy and amenities – the distance from those properties is known as the separation.

Cllr Brian Puddicombe, said: “You’ll note that on the application it’s stated as John Street car park with the emphasis on car park “This was a car park for 39-49 High Street.”

He stated that some of those houses had been rented and in the rental advert it was detailed that parking was available on that site.

On the separation distance, Cllr Puddicombe said: “If 14 metres is the minimum recommended distance, then residents of 39-49 High Street are surely entitled to this.”

Macclesfield Town councillor Fiona Wilson asked what had changed so significantly in the application that officers recommended refusal last month and now it should be approved.

“The development site is still at a higher elevation than the existing properties on High Street so it will still be unduly dominant on the current outlook of the existing properties,” she said, adding the separation distance was “significantly lower” than the 14m required.

“Residents on High Street are still losing that car parking and bin storage.

“They’ve been using the site referred to in this application as John Street car park to park their cars and store their bins for 36 years.”

The planning officer said it’s a very tightly packed, terraced street environment and some properties didn’t have 14m separation distance.

Parking issues, bin storage and right of access were civil matters, not planning concerns, and would have to be dealt with separately.

Crewe councillor Anthony Critchley again raised concerns about a decision being made before the closing time for comments had passed.

“We can’t make a proper decision today because we haven’t had all the information because the information will take two or three days to go online,” he said.

High Legh councillor Kate Parkinson agreed.

Mr Wakefield said: “Potentially, if we defer it, again, the applicant’s got a right of appeal against non-determination in which case it gets taken out of our hands anyway.”

The application was approved with the condition it is delegated back to officers in consultation with the chair to consider any late representations submitted.

The vote was six in favour, three against and one councillor abstained.