Graham reports back from Friends of Scholes Park meeting
Cheadle and Gatley Liberal Democrats
Demand more Learn more
Graham reports back from Friends of Scholes Park meeting
Gatley's Lucy Boxes
Sign up for weekly emails
Frustration as Tatton planning application nears two-year mark
by Lib Dem Team on 17 February, 2017
Local residents, along with the Lib Dem team, are frustrated with Dickens Property Group as their planning application to develop the former Tatton cinema edges towards the two-year mark.
Planning application
Planning applications are normally decided with a few months, but the Tatton application was submitted back in June 2015 and is still not fully approved.
The application is for a large convenience store and 36 apartments.
“When the application went in, we hoped it would progress normally and that the whole development would be completed by now. Instead, Dickens who own the Tatton seem to be dragging their feet, delaying everything and trying to avoid having the application signed off. We don’t know why, but one possibility is that they’re trying to avoid the Council launching a Compulsory Purchase Order on the site.” said Cllr Iain Roberts.
“Local residents are happy with the proposals. Last time I spoke to the Council’s planning officers I was told that they were happy with the proposals and were just waiting for some final paperwork before signing it all off. And that’s where we’ve stayed.” Iain added.
No action from owners
The Tatton site has been an eyesore since the cinema closed down in 2001. Dickens bought the site in 2005 after it had gone through a succession of owners, but have failed to do anything with it since their first application was turned down in 2009.
The Lib Dem team have been working with the Council on a Compulsory Purchase Order, which is in progress but not a sure fix.
Compulsory Purchase Order
“If we get a CPO on the Tatton site, the most likely outcome is that the Council buys the site from Dickens and then sells it to another developer with a tight agreement that they’ll get on and develop it right away,” Iain said. “But CPOs can be fought in court and Dickens will try to argue that they are actively developing the site.”
There has been some activity on the Tatton site over the last few months. Self-seeded trees and bushes to the rear were cleared away. Fences have been repaired where young people have broken into the site (though they still get in, and a small fire was lit a few months ago which meant the Fire Service attending).
More recently a gate was fitted into the fence to allow vehicle access to the site, and some sort of drilling was briefly done to the rear. The gate was then removed and the fencing reinstated.
Action now
Keith, Iain and Graham and pressing Dickens to get on and develop the site, having owned it for more than a decade. The councillors are also pushing the Council to progress the CPO.
“We are very grateful for the work of Gatley Village Partnership, who have written to Dickens calling for action. We fully support any and all residents pressing for action to be taken,” said Keith.
“We don’t have a magic bullet,” said Iain. “But the Lib Dem team will work with the Council and do everything we can to get the Tatton sorted. It’s disgraceful that this eyesore is still at the centre of the village sixteen years on. We have been let down by the owners of the site and we need to use all legal means to sort it out. If Dickens get on and develop it then great. If not, it needs to go to someone else who can.”
8 Comments
Sorry Iain but this fiasco would never had happened if your party had not opposed the original plans.
I attended the planning enquiry – the only local resident to speak supporting the original development.
The scheme was opposed by all three political parties. The then Tory councillor was vociferous in his opposition – at the enquiry as well as countless party leaflets in his campaign to get elected (I still have all of them somewhere).
But, lets not forget the planning enquiry is an independent semi-judicial process. The inspector did not accept a single one of the arguments being put forward by the Tory councillor. He did, however, rule against the scheme on the very precise grounds that the residents of the care home had insufficient “amenity space” . It was an odd conclusion – everyone was working off the same set of plans and everyone knew how many residents there were going to be. Yet, the developer and the council had reached different conclusions about the measurement. And the inspector reached a different, third calculation. Frankly, it’s the sort of thing that should have been agreed right at the beginning between the developer’s architect and the council’s planning officer. Had there not been that failure, it would by now have been sorted out and constructed.
John you seem to imply that the Tory councillor was the only one there and no one else had any input. Did the Libdems ever issue any leaflets and did any of their councillors say anything ? Also how many councillors attended?
John is correct. Although none of the parties agreed with the plans for the Tatton it was the Tory councillor who was the most vociferous in the vote to turn down the scheme. He galvanized the opposition..
It was finally turned down not because of change from cin ema to supermarket but because of a problem with the flats at the rear of the building and it has been stalemate ever since.
The original plans failed on two points, one was lack of outdoor space for residents and another was the loading by for the shop being too close to the Windows of the residential home. Nothing to do with local councillors objecting to the plans. If Dickens had resubmitted the original plans with these 2 points addressed I would have passed. The newer plans were backed by a much larger majority of gatley residents, but as mentioned above, Dickens are now just sat on them, obviously to put a spanner in the cpo plans.
Bruce
As you’ll appreciate, the enquiry was an appeal against the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission, rather than a full discussion of the proposal “from scratch”.
My recollection is that there were two Lib Dem councillors. present – Iain Roberts and the late Cllr Grice (? sp). I think the latter was Chair of the relevent council committee which had made the decision. There were also a couple of Council employees.
On the other side of the table, was the developer and his various representatives. And then four or five local residents – including the chap from Bossco who was then chair of the “local traders association”. I believe that Mr Jones, the Tory councillor, was there in a private capacity having been previously determined to have had a “prejudical interest” in the matter, so could not speak as a councillor.
I had no need to take notes of the full discussion so am reliant on memory about how things went. It was very much a matter of the inspector posing open questions about the application and inviting discussion. On the Council side, it was generally Cllr Grice, or one of the planning officers, who responded. For the developer, it was their “planning advisor”. Of the members of the public, it was Mr Jones who had much to say. I would actually take the view that he said too much and, perhaps, harmed his own case by his bluster. I can think of one remark he made that was so full of hyperbole that even the inspector couldnt hide a smile. Other than those interventions, the exchanges between the representatives of the Council & Dickens were often quite technical and detailed – for example, about whether flower beds surrounding the car park should be included in the calculations for the car park space or whether it should be amenity space. But please don’t ask me to develop that particular discussion further – I sort of glazed over at the time and, some years on, have no recollection of the details.
I had had my say about the proposal by late morning but stayed until the lunch break. After lunch, the inspector was going to undertake a site visit and the main protaganists were also going. I’ve obviously no idea what was said during that part of the enquiry.
As for whether the Lib Dems campaigned on the subject during the election when Mr Jones was elected, I can only find one reference in my collection of leaflets. It was one warning that Mr Jones, in taking a stance on the matter, would be deemed to have a “prejudicial interest”, which would mean that, if elected, he would not be able to speak in Council meetings to the subject, as a councillor. This was because of the semi judicial nature of reaching planning decisions which means that, like a judge, councillors have to approach their decision makiing froman unbiased standpoint. And, of course, that’s exactly what happened after Mr Jones was elected. To be blunt, in this matter, the Conservatives let down the local residents who had supported their Tatton campaign because their newly elected councillor couldnt officially represent those opinions. It may be that folk had a long memory and that’s why he wasnt re-elected when his term was up.
By the by, the local Labour Party also opposed the Tatton development but, in a later election, did have the good grace to admit they were wrong.
Hope that helps.
John
John,
Many thanks for your response – let us hope that it gets sorted quickly.
Bruce
I think it’s pretty obvious that dickens have no real intention of “getting on with it ” so don’t waste your time with them
Focus on getting the cpo asap, probably our only chance of getting anything done in the next decade