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
Oddfellows planning application for new car park
by Lib Dem team on 14 October, 2017
Oddfellows Hotel in Bruntwood Park have applied for a planning application for a car park. The application is number 67142 – you can see the details and have your say here.
The planning application is retrospective – the car park has already been built without permission.
The site of the car park is council land which was used as a building compound during the hotel conversion works. The original agreement with the council was for the land to be returned to its previous condition. Were planning permission to be granted for the car park, the council – as land-owner – would still have to agree to its use, and presumably lease the land.
This is an unusual situation – the Lib Dem team are keen to hear the views of local residents.
25 Comments
Who grants planning permission? This almost sounds like a perverse Catch 22. Since it’s been built illegally planning permission should not be granted else it supports the illegal action.
The hotel should be made to return the land to its original status – as agreed – and then make an application for the car park – and all at their expense. There is too much ‘do what I like’ these days, an example should be made.
Looks like they’ve applied the old; “Easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission”? I wonder how the council would deal with a regular punter building their extension or similar without getting permission first?
I think is one of those instances where common sense should prevail. I have visited the ‘otel (?). The first time I had to park way over in the main Bruntwood parking and pay! The small car park, which by the way in no way detracts from the surroundings and has been tastefully carried out, is essential. I would be most disappointed if this were not granted immediately and without any penalty. To suggest that it is put back in order to apply is a bit heavy handed. I suggest all those residents who may think that they would object go and take a look – and perhaps pop in for a coffee or tea. I know of a number of people who have visited Cheadle and stayed there – it’s a number of stress up for the Village Hotel. I myself have used it for both social and business meetings.
Obviously it is wrong for Oddfellows to grab this land but let’s face it a 5 star hotel needs a car park.
I walk pass this hotel most days and I have seen a run down long empty Bruntwood Hall evolve into an upmarket beautifully presented hotel which is a great asset for Cheadle.
The amount of work and money invested in this building in order to convert it into an upmarket hotel is something to be
admired. I wish the owners of the hotel all the best and I wish to thank them for investing many millions of their pounds in Cheadle.
I would also like to remind them to apply for planning permission in the first instance.
They’re cheeky, but given the pressure on parking in the rest of the park, anything that helps ease this problem has to be welcome. The car park as it exists doesn’t detract from the park amenities. But what puzzles me is that a Section 106 agreement doesn’t appear to be in place. I’m willing to be corrected on this. But this would have given scope for the drive to be resurfaced at the hotel’s cost, given the increase in traffic. I also thought the dirt car park was also going to be resurfaced and marked at the hotel’s expense. What the council needs to do is to take action against any illegal parking associated with the hotel, and to make sure the hotel management make this totally plain to hotel users. As a comparison, the Bowmen of Bruntwood, which has been in the park since 1951 and helped the park achieve Green Flag status, has had to pay for parking like everyone else. I know this as a long-standing member. We have good relations with the council, but how club members will view the hotel’s unauthorised parking arrangements, given we often can’t find parking spaces on busy summer weekends, remains to be seen.
*number or steps up!
If my memory serves me right ( these days that can’t be guaranteed!), parking was discussed at length, originally. The Hotel said they would use a valet system for their guests. I expected the large car park near the archery field to be used. How wrong can one be? The valet system was also required because the gates by the entrance by the Lodge on Schools Hill are closed at dusk – is that still the case?
I think the council has really been taken advantage of here, as the hotel was given the temporary use of the land, (presumably at no benefit to the council in terms of payment or any other concession), and agreed to return it to its former use, but then blatantly ignored that agreement and developed the land, not only for its own use, but without consent! That’s pretty shocking to me, and I’m sure the hotel would not tolerate that kind of behaviour on land belonging to them – their lawyers would be on to it straight away and be taking steps to evict the transgressers!
Just out of interest, how is it possible to apply for planning permission for land which doesn’t belong to the hotel? Surely the hotel should have a lease to occupy the land before it can develop it? I know they have already developed it, but doesn’t the legal position regarding the land need to be sorted out first?
If the council is content to see the land used as a car park there is no point in forcing its closure, but the council needs to take a strong stand in terms of charging the hotel (retrospectively) for the use of the land from the day it starting using it as a car park.
The council is in a strong bargaining position here in that the land is valuable to the hotel as a car park, and this hotel will no doubt be making a good deal of money, unlike the cash strapped council. To allow the hotel the free use of the land is unthinkable. This could bring in much needed revenue to the council. I think the council needs to be much more ‘on the ball’ and commercially ‘savvy’.
I don’t understand why we’ve been asked for our opinion! If I’d had applied for planning permission retrospectively, the council wouldn’t have written to my neighbours and asked what they think. They’d have told me to put things back the way they were, and start again properly. So what’s different? Is there one rule for one, and one rule for another? (whether or not somebody likes it!)
Do it properly. If planning permission is granted retrospectively, a president will be set that could result in action against the council.
Totally agree with the other Alan! If this is allowed to stand a good lawyer will drive a coach and horses through the law in future for all manner of dodgy house extensions.
Bear in mind a developer in London knocked down a grade II listed pub overnight. The council went to court and he now has to rebuild the pub ‘exactly as it was, brick by brick’. So come on Stockport, get your act together, the law is on your side, why give ground?
Alan . What you are saying here is just not correct. The monthly applications on all Local Authority Planning meetings have a number of such retrospective applications ,many due to people attempting to get away with no application at all but many where people were unaware that a particular element needed a full approval. Very rarely does the local authority insist that something is taken down but would rather come to a sensible arrangement. The Hotels proffesional team of developers Architects etc are at fault here in starting this work IF it did not form part of any planning consent but knowing how difficult it is to gain approval on a development without ticking the important matter of adequate parking I cannot see how this has got to this point. Rather surprised the LDs have made this point on here ,the development of this hotel is an asset to Bruntwood and should be fully supported.
Completely agree with Misty.
One of my concerns about the hotel was that they would start to encroach on the park land. It hasn’t taken long for this to happen. What a shame they have chosen to do this; it speaks volumes about how they choose to do business and they view the local park users.
If the land is not to be returned to its former condition then the hotel need to pay for its ongoing use. Perhaps the money could go towards maintenence of the play area, or improving the pathway that runs alongside the School’s Hill entrance next to the river, as there is one section which is treacherous.
By the way I disagree with the poster above who said it was tastefully done. I think it looks awful. It certainly looked better before the hotel moved in, in its natural state!
Ideally I would like to see the land returned to its former condition. However, a part of me wonders if having the car park there will make it safer for children as it will reduce the flow of traffic going past the toilet block.
The only time I have seen the new car park much being used is when they have had what I assume are car related ‘events’ – lots of brand new Volvos and Range Rovers parked there recently. Presumably the hotel couldn’t host these events without the extra parking? They are probably making a lot of money from the use of the land.
Retrospective planning is used regularly and the planners don’t always insist things are are put back. It’s a good tool. The area of the car park is really not affecting anyone or anything. It doesn’t detract from the park and will hopefully ensure that the hotel business can continue appropriately. It represents a major investment in Cheadle. Without this investment what else would have happened. It may have been derelict like Barnes was or, dare I mention it, the Tatton eyesore. This matter, like all such planning matters like it, must be considered on their merits and not based on knee jerk reactions.
The fact that it’s been built without planning and is probably going to get planning I can accept.
However, I note the the car park is designated for “Hotel guests only”.
Do they have right to do that without planning, and will the council extract some sort of rental as part of the retrospective planning permission.
– unless the council can extract. Some form of rental from the hotel in relation to the retrospective planning?
I have seen the car park and I have no objections – let it be.
I have read their agent’s application letter – not one word of apology or explanation for their failings in relation to planning. This is no doubt what they intended all along. To resolve the issue – first step – agree a lease for the land (which is owned by Stockport MBC and it’s council tax payers) with appropriate rental – surely you can’t apply for planning consent on someone else’s land. Step 2 – apply for planning consent for the car park. Will probably take a few months. In the meantime the council needs to tell them they they have no rights over the car park and it should be open for use to any Stockport Council Tax payer. Might make them follow the rules next time!
I have no objections to the car park for the hotel. But I heard that part of the total ‘deal’ for building the hotel was that Oddfellows were to (re)surface the overflow car park at the back by the BMX track
Also, I assume that the park is now not locked at night…is this the case?
Just picking up on a point Ruth made. The gates are now left open 24/7. Apparently this brings it into line with every other park in Stockport. Also, the car park is left unlocked 24/7, I believe, so that it is a permanent cut-through. It would be good to have answers. Obviously, the hotel wanted the main gates left unlocked for customers. Is this why the car park is now left unlocked? At least it prevents people getting locked into the park, with their vehicles, as has happened.
If the Hotel can commander an area of Bruntwood Park does that mean that I can also commander an area of the Park.
The Hotel has behaved like Travellers sneaking in over a Bank Holiday Weekend
Everything has been said already. I agree with the majority view but to summarise:-
– How can anyone use Council land without a lease? Are we certain that the lease of the building does not include the original parking outside and additional land even if only a right of way has been granted? If not, the Council should be charging a proper additional rent.
– Anyone can apply for planning permission even if they do not own the land in respect of which the application is made.
– It does not make sense that there was no requirement attached to the planning permission for the conversion to a hotel that there should be adequate parking close to the hotel without a requirement for valet parking.
– Equally it does not make sense that this application was not made during the conversion process or shortly before opening. However, retrospective applications are normal and very often granted.
– The car park in this position does not impact on the park amenities, but does not have the correct aesthetics. Would less obtrusive fencing and gree tarmac look better visually.
– The hotel adds a great new amenity to Cheadle and because of this I would grant the permission subject to stringent conditions.
I was tempted to make a unserious comment about Money Rules Over All! But on reflection and study of some previous implied applauds of the Oddfellows actions I am serious that as long as the legal reaction is delayed then more encroachment of the Park will happen. Do not forget that solicitors – well paid – can conjure up lengthy delays to enforcement and eventual retreat of the Council action to save Council money apparently in the Public Interest.
Well clearly not followed the rules but in mitigation they have provided by far the best quality hotel and restaurant in the area as well as many good service sector jobs which we need.
I would let them have the car park at presumably some reasonable payment to the council who own the land.
The hotel have destroyed some valuable open land. I’ve watched locals play on this land for the last 30 odd years. It’s a disgrace that the council has not challenged this until now.
I completely object to this change of use. We should be fighting for more green space for our youngsters, not allowing public land to be siphoned off for the private use of profit-making organisations (benefiting from the park which is already paid for by local tax payers)
I have been told the hotel has also expanded onto park land at the back of the building. This seems to be the thin end of the wedge – do we want our hard-earned tax to be subsidising a hotel’s estate?
I support having a business in the park, but not at the expense of lsoing valuable green space.
It seems to me (regretfully) that councillors are at risk of seeing the price of everything and the value of nothing.
I hope this application is rejected and the land returned to public use
Please see below a statement from Oddfellows On The Park with regards to the planning permission for the car park –
http://www.oddfellowsonthepark.com/blog/2017/10/19/car-parking-statement/73-30/
It should not be granted. This development has hugely increased the traffic on the road into the park and cars do not drive slowly and there is no pavement.. these are professional developers who knew full well the need to apply and they have taken public land for their benefit. There is a pay car park fifty yards across from the hotel which they could use, pay parking and contribute to the upkeep of the park.