On Air Now Alex Cann 6:00am - 11:00am
Now Playing Prince Kiss

Plan for new homes at ‘eyesore site’ in Dukinfield rejected

Plans to build four residential houses on an ‘eyesore plot’ of land to the west of the side of 327 Birch Lane in Dukinfield have been refused.

An application for two pairs of two-bedroomed, two-storey semi-detached homes came before the latest council speakers’ panel meeting.

Councillors were told that parking would be provided to the front of the homes and accessed off Birch Lane.

However, planning officers had recommended the plan be refused, stating the land on which the new homes would be built would be alongside a neighbouring property.

The site at present was described as being in a ‘poor physical condition’ and a notice had already been served under ‘untidy land’ requirements on the applicant to address those issues which must be carried out by next January.

But officers added the plan for the new homes should not be seen as a way of addressing the untidy land issues or ‘historical’ problems related to the site.

Three neighbours had objected to the new homes proposals.

Concerns were raised about the relationship of the properties to Birch Lane and host and neighbouring property, the outlook of the neighbouring properties, and that the development would be of a ‘piecemeal’ nature and  an over-development of the site resulting in a loss of character.

The panel heard from Jason Dugdale, who spoke in support of the development.

“The site is an obvious infill site. It is clear on this particular part of Birch Lane that there is no particular character because of the adhoc street pattern and positioning of neighbouring houses,” he said.

He added that before submitting the plans a formal, paid-for pre-application had been submitted with, he stated, the reasons given for refusal ‘at odds with the initial advice received from the formal pre-app.’

He continued that, based upon initial advice, reports were subsequently commissioned, requested by the planning office such as noise assessment, drainage and planning statement and the costs for each report was around £1,500.

“The applicant is therefore somewhat dismayed that reports to support the application were commissioned only for the application to be refused for different reasons,” he added.

He said a compromise had been suggested with an offer that one of the houses could be withdrawn from the plans to provide two semis and a detached dwelling. Once again this was an additional cost.

Stating the applicant had received ‘contradictory’ advice about the plans, he concluded: “This is an obvious infill site and the houses built would be the same as those recently built further along Birch Lane near Dewsnap Lane... and gets rid of a problem the council have had for years on this site of getting rid of an untidy piece of land.”

Dukinfield councillor Brian Wild said the site was an ‘eyesore’ and asked if the number of homes was reduced to three, whether it might be approved, to which Mr Dugdale responded the planning office had suggested just two homes be built, but this was ‘non-viable to the applicant’.

Cllr Wild also asked about the nature of the homes that would be built and was told they would be constructed by the same builder who had recently completed the development further along Birch Lane - which had proved highly popular.

Addressing planning officers, Cllr Wild said the site was a mess and the development was one way of tidying it up.

“It’s been a mess for years. We are crying out for houses and yet we are refusing,” he said.

Planning officers said guidance had been provided to the applicant in good faith and it was not ‘a straightforward infill.’

Cllr Vimal Choksi said he could not understand how the development did not meet the character of the area, and questioned if the site should therefore remain empty forever.

However, officers said there was a ‘jar’ between neighbouring properties and it did not meet the character of the better housing stock on Birch Lane.

Cllr Doreen Dickinson echoed Cllr Wild’s view regarding the need for housing stock and yet the recommendation was to refuse the building of four houses in the hope of a comprehensive plan which might never be agreed.

However, Cllr Vincent Ricci said he was frustrated by the view that the panel were rejecting homes being built, when earlier plans to build 21 homes in Mossley had also been refused.

He said officers had attempted to work with the applicant and it was considered two homes on the site would be acceptable - and that could still happen in the future.

A majority of panel members backed the officers’ recommendation for refusal, only Cllrs Wild and Choksi voting against, although a number of councillors abstained.

More from Tameside Reporter

Weather

  • Fri

    12°C

  • Sat

    13°C

  • Sun

    14°C

  • Mon

    10°C