Residents and Politicians United against Town Cramming

February 22, 2010 3:01 PM
Local residents and Mark unite on Bramley Close to oppose the proposals

Local residents and Mark unite on Bramley Close to oppose the proposals

A planning appeal to replace a bungalow with three town houses in Bramley Close, Bramhall has united residents and local MP Mark Hunter in opposition to the proposals. The controversial proposal was rejected by Stockport MBC Councillors against the planning officer's recommendation last year. The land owner a Mr A Mayer of Cheadle Hulme, who does not live in the bungalow; is now attempting to redevelop the existing bungalow with three houses and three accesses and has appealed to the Government.

According to local resident Bernard Burgess, aged 73, "This is overdevelopment and will harm the character of the area. I am extremely concerned about the lack of onsite parking and highway safety problems that will result from three individual accesses. The developer has seriously underestimated the large number of car and pedestrian visitors to the train station car park, the library and the health centre, which all have to use Bramley Close to leave, as it a one way road. This proposal will only make the situation worse; it is an accident waiting to happen."

This is the third planning application that the developer has made, one withdrawn at early stage and two having been rejected as "town cramming" by the Planning Committee but residents will not be worn down by the "war of attrition being pursued by Mr Mayer.

Steve Griffiths of Bramley Road commented,

"This proposal has brought us all together to protect our neighbourhood from overdevelopment and profiteering developers who do not live here. I am encouraged by a Government statement issued on 19 January this year which has changed the planning rules relating to the development of garden land. The Government has changed the emphasis of National Planning Guidance in PPS 3 Housing to say,

"This means that paragraph 41 of the PPS, which explains that brownfield land is the priority for development, will also now say that "there is no presumption that previously developed land is necessarily suitable for housing, nor that all of the curtilage should be developed". PPS3 retains a focus on brownfield land, where this is suitable for housing." (Our emphasis)

We are hopeful that the Planning Inspector will give considerable weight to this change to national planning guidance"

Local MP Mark Hunter has supported the residents and has written to the Planning Inspector condemning the appeal proposals as unacceptable development. At a recent residents meeting he said,

"Redevelopment of garden land and existing houses has been a concern of mine for many years. It is a shame it has taken the Government so long to change the rules and realise that not all brownfield land is suitable for development. It should be recognised that Stockport Councillors opposed this application at the Planning Committee and chose to go against the planning officer's recommendation. I fully support the residents in their campaign to stop this overdevelopment of the area."

The Planning Inspector is likely to visit the site later this month and then issue his decision. In the meantime the residents have made further representations to the Planning Inspector commenting on statements by the Developer's Agent and the Planning Officer.

Pensioner Bernard Burgess said,

"I have lived in this house for 37 years and I take pride in this neighbourhood and wish to protect it from speculative developers. What these greedy developers need to realise is that you cannot a quart into a pint pot and you cannot get feathers from a frog!"

What would you like to do next?