Mossley land subject of third development attempt

A DEVELOPER has made a third attempt to build houses on an area of land in Mossley, even though two previous applications have been refused.

And the crux of Daniel Wilcox’s argument for why eight properties should be built on Stamford Road seems to centre in the fact homes lay there until the mid-1970s.

Tameside Council said no to Uppermill-based Wickens Estates’ schemes for six two-bedroomed and three three-bedroomed properties, along with two four-bedroomed houses, two two-bedroomed homes and a block of 12 apartments.

However, a new application has been lodged asking to place eight two-bedroomed properties there.

Stamford Road, Mossley

And documents supporting the application, which is almost certain to be met with local opposition, make several references to what stood there about 50 years ago.

They state: “There were houses on the site until about 1975.

“These were back-to-back properties with multiple floor levels accessed from Stamford Road and, at higher level, from Back George Street.

“More recently, planning permission was granted for a pair of semi-detached dwellings on part of the site. The use of site for residential purposes has therefore been established.

“The decision to refuse the previous applications did not take account of the original street scene in respect of the height of original building on the site.

“Prior to their demolition, there were multi-level houses on the site accessed from Stamford Road and off George Street to the rear.

“The front main wall of the houses formed what is now the back of the footpath on Stamford Road.

“This development reinstates housing on the site. In terms of the council’s supplementary planning guidance document, the site can be defined as an ‘Infill Site.’”

Wickens’ attempts have been opposed by Mossley’s ward councillors on the ground of the traffic issues allowing new homes there would create.

However, they believe it would benefit the town.

They add: “The proposed development will bring clear economic benefits in terms of construction jobs, spend in the local community and make use of brownfield land.

“The site is not of ecological value and will not result in any drainage or flood risk. It is close to local shops and services and is well served by public transport.

“The proposal is therefore considered to constitute sustainable development with no adverse impacts that significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits from the delivery of new housing.

“In the light of the council’s current housing supply position, any application for residential development on the site should be supported.

“The site is suitable for residential development. The redevelopment of a brownfield site in the town centre satisfies local and national policies and will assist the council in meeting its housing targets without having to develop greenfield sites.

“The proposed development has been designed to address concerns regarding appearance and living conditions raised in respect on the previous submission.

“The proposed development fits well into the Mossley townscape and each dwelling provides accommodation which is in excess of the published government space standards.”

Hopes it will be given the go ahead have been boosted by a letter from Craig Richardson, of Tameside Council’s environmental services department, in which he did not say no.

However, the authority’s speakers panel (planning) committee will decide whether to grant or refuse planning permission after hearing all views for and against.

4 Replies to “Mossley land subject of third development attempt”

  1. Can’t see how the building of 8 houses will bring lasting benefit to the town in terms of long term construction jobs which will end when the contract is completed or bring any substantial added value to the local community economy. i.e. local shops and services. Prior historic housing on the site is irrelevant today. The application should be refused.

  2. There was houses in the mid 70’s correct BUT the amount of traffic then & now is completely different . It’s a NO accept it

  3. It’s so unsuitable to build on its a very busy road there are traffic lights there and what about the houses opposite I wouldn’t want to look out and see just house’s why is there a must to build on every bit of green space profit before people it’s needs to be a NO

  4. When the previous buildings were there the traffic flow was a great deal less than now. Whilst developing the site there will be much disruption to the traffic flow in addition to after completion of proposed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *