CAMPAIGNERS against plans to further develop land in Mossley are celebrating after another application was rejected.
Wickens Estates Ltd, based in Uppermill, hoped to build four town houses and 12 apartments on a piece of land on Stamford Road.
However, after substantial opposition, including from Mossley Town Council and the three councillors on Tameside Council, it was unanimously voted out.Wickens Estates Ltd, whose only officer is Samuel Wilcox, wanted to construct two four-bedroomed and two two-bedroomed houses, as well as 12 two-bedroomed apartments in a three-storey development.
But just like an application to develop nearby Brookfields, Tameside Council’s speakers’ panel (planning) committee voted it down.
Councillor Taf Sharif, who led the opposition, said: “The development would have gridlocked the town. It would also be absurd to expect construction vehicles to use this road for at least two years.
“The traffic congestion and the road itself, being narrow and with a steep gradient, would simply not have been able to cope.
“The proposed site is right next to a set of traffic lights at a very busy junction, one of the busiest in the town.“Any delivery of materials at any time of the day had the potential of creating absolute chaos.
“This in fact a small piece of land and the proposal for four houses and 12 apartments was an overdevelopment.
“The development was out of character with surrounding and nearby properties and would therefore have been detrimental to residential and visual amenity.
“In particular, the scale of the proposal would have been “overbearing” on the nearby residential property.”
Cllr Sharif’s concerns, backed up by colleagues Stephen and Jack Homer, were echoed by officers as well as the town’s council.
They were worried things including over-development and bin storage, with a report saying: “Older properties in Mossley have difficulty in storing bins and a new development should not encourage further examples of bins left out on the pavement which is detrimental to the street scene and an obstruction of the highway.There were also fears over the safety implications of cars reversing out of the driveways on to the main road, especially given the existing traffic signals which are adjacent to the proposed development.
Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) commented that Stamford Road is fairly narrow and would not lend itself to cars reversing out of the driveways on to it.
The public transport body recommended the car parking provision was either removed or redesigned and more details regarding surface water drainage were considered to be necessary.
Tameside also received six letters of objection raising concerns the scheme proposed too high a density of development, which would result in a detrimental impact on the character of the area.
It was also thought the scale of the development would result in a population increase that would have a detrimental impact on the capacity of services and facilities like schools and doctor surgeries.
Tameside Council considered the principle of the development to be acceptable but it stated why it would not back it.
A report added: “The scale and design of the development are considered to be detrimental to the prevailing character of the surrounding area, the residential amenity of neighbouring residents and highway safety.
“The proposed development would result in a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the properties on the northern side of Stamford Road, given the fact that the building would be three storeys in height and would include habitable room windows in the roof space.
“The separation distance between the front elevation of the proposed development and the corresponding elevation of 90-94 Stamford Road is just below nine metres.
“Given the limited nature of the separation distance to be retained and the fact that the properties on the opposite side of Stamford Road are only two storeys in height, it is considered that the proposal would result in harmful overlooking and an overbearing impact on the amenity of those neighbouring properties.”
Agent Paul Judge contested the objections, saying: “The design was typical of the terraced streets in the area.”
In line with officer’s recommendation, the application was unanimously rejected based on ground of highways safety and residential amenity – overlooking other properties and detriment to the character of the surrounding area.
The decision delighted Cllr Sharif, who added: “All three Mossley councillors and the Town Council do support more affordable housing in the area, but these must be in the right location and with supported infrastructure.
“Recent applications I’m afraid would just cause chaos to the town. We are pleased that the panel have listened to us and have sensibly rejected this application.”