Planning Application - Valid grounds for objection ?

rocky_robin

It would appear that the original layout of the nursery was changed to reduce the noise "suffered" by the residents of 25 Deansgate from the children playing in the outside area of the nursery

rocky_robin

I have found the following document very enlightening in terms of the measurements quoted by the developers and also in terms of the distances they have "forgotten" to mention

http://www.trafford.gov.uk/cme/live/dynamic/DocMan2Document.asp?document_id=A27C2B53-54A2-42D0-A083-F6FEBF4DDFCF

planning_officer

rocky_robin wrote: »

It would appear that the original layout of the nursery was changed to reduce the noise "suffered" by the residents of 25 Deansgate from the children playing in the outside area of the nursery

So instead of the noise and disturbance from children. the occupants now have to look at a two storey block extending the full depth of their garden - in my view the developer has gone from one extreme to the other - that's a very poor relationship in visual terms.

rocky_robin

It would be nice to think my original letter of objection (full of the salient points raised by the forum mebers on here) has made a difference.

Another layout plan has appeared which now details more about the landscaping and boundary treatments on the site and has also meant the consultation period being extended.

http://planningdocs.trafford.gov.uk/eintranet/pam/pamViewDoc.jsp?fileid=4374642

Most of the original objections are still valid but I've come up with a few more based on the materials used for some elements of the boundary treatments and also the Guidelines for New Residential Development issued by the council

rocky_robin

Thanks again to all who have provided and advice and support with regard to this application, it looks like the points raised are being considered and taken into account.

The Architectural Liaison Unit have finally been contacted at Greater Manchester Police, so the consultation period has been extended again to await their input in terms of “designing out crime”.

I would like to think that some of the points that I and other residents have raised have been considered valid by the planning officers and they have therefore gone back to the developers and asked them to revise their plans to take account of the changes required.

A new set of site layout plans, ground floor plans for the care home and plans for the children’s nursery have been sent in but as yet I can’t see that many differences from the original plans that were sent in.
I may be missing something

http://planning.trafford.gov.uk/MVM/Online/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningTechAppraisalPK.xml&PARAM0=104922&XSLT=/MVM/SiteFiles/Skins/trafford/xslt/PL/PLTechAppraisalDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/MVM/SiteFiles/Skins/trafford/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING

rocky_robin

The go-ahead was finally given last Thursday after some concerns over the amount of hard landscaping on the site were overcome.

There appear to be a number of planning "issues" that were waived such as the parking spaces but there you go.

The only possible block now is the fact that the developers are refusing to pay the contribution required by the council for highway improvements

http://www.messengernewspapers.co.uk/news/3853839.Green_light_for_old_nursery_site/

Many thanks to all those who helped to try and block this application, I hope other people have a little more success than we did

rocky_robin

Nursery now built and in use with probably 30 of the expected 80 kids currently attending , site for the nursing home fenced off and awaiting commencement.

This is where it gets interesting, plans for the surgery have been abandoned and there are now proposals for 4 houses on the site.

Does this mean
1) Delay in starting the nursing home so that if permission for 4 houses is granted, another application can go in for this site for further house construction

2) Can the appeal officer's view that houses constitute overdevelopment in the area now be ignored (original decision in 2004)

3) Is a retrospective application required for the nursery/nursing home given that some of the area such as parking and visual amenity were dependent on all 3 developments being built