• Bookmark this page

The Best Guide for the Neston Area

Neston news, reviews and local events in Neston areas including Little Neston, Parkgate, Willaston, and communities in Neston.

Calendar of
Upcoming Events
Constables Estate Agents

Business Reviews

Testimonials

"Thank you for putting in the work on AMA and making local news and information readily accessible for local people."
- TC, Neston
Loading...

Easy Access

Planning Application Now In for New Development in Church Lane, Neston

Author: John Cartlidge Published: 10th July 2019 08:53

Back in May, we were advised that developers McCarthy and Stone were seeking to consult on proposed Retirement Living accomodation on land at Brook Meadow, off Church Lane in Neston.

Now, the formal planning application has been made and residents or other interested parties may comment, on the Council's website, as to whether they support or object to the plans.

Due to the number of public comments already made on our original article about this, we have retained it below, along with the existing comments for your reference.

To access the application on the Cheshire West and Chester website, click here.You have until Monday 22nd July to log your comments on the application.

Original article (7.5.2019) follows:

Local resident John Cartlidge draws your attention to a consultation launched recently by a property developer, relating to land in Church Lane.

Many who live around Church Lane, Flint Meadow, as well as those who use the pathways around the area will recall the controversy in 2005/6 when the woodland at Brook Meadow (more or less opposite the ATC hut) was illegally felled by Samuel Stock and his then company Abbotsford Developments (U.K.), Ltd. Despite a conviction and fine for unlicensed felling of woodland, the Forestry Commission failed to secure a re-planting order despite stating they would.

Land in Church Lane now potentially earmarked for developmentLand in Church Lane now potentially earmarked for development

In recent days, homes near to the location have received a brochure from national property developers McCarthy & Stone, who are proposing a three storey block on the site, to provide 50 retirement apartments, and if the illustration is accurate, parking for 36 cars.

Whilst the front of the brochure shows a modest frontage, the building itself will cover an area of approximately 25 meters wide by 50 meters long. In the brochure it is stated the company has ‘recently acquired an interest' in the property. The last listed transaction was in 2018 when the price paid was £250,000, although the specific details of ‘the interest' will be private between the parties.

Typically in such cases the vendors hold what is known as ‘overage' (also known as clawback or uplift) which means if the new owner secures planning permission, the vendor receives additional payment. Certainly, the price paid barely reflects the value of a single property site, never mind a massive multi-million development opportunity.

The brochure includes an invitation to be involved in the ‘consultation', and further states this development will have "Low levels of traffic generation and car ownership". Whilst those of more advanced years might have given up motoring, most 50 year olds I know have a car.

McCarthy & Stone brochure recently delivered to residents in the areaMcCarthy & Stone brochure recently delivered to residents in the area

No planning application has been submitted as yet, and the brochure advertises an exhibition of the proposals at the Methodist Church, Park Street on Tuesday 14th May from 3 - 7 pm.

What may be of additional interest is there was a recent (2015) planning application granted for the further felling of trees subject to tree preservation orders. The applicant was Brabners Solicitors of Liverpool for a company known as Everleigh Holdings Limited. We cannot find any UK listed company of that name. I mention this because Brabners seem to have been involved with the various owners of the property for many years, even though on paper at least, ownership has changed hands. What may be of further interest is an offshore company of this name was listed as represented by Mossack Fenseca, the firm based in Panama that was subject to police raids in 2016 following publication of their records. (‘The Panama Papers' news story?)

Whilst in the modern day we are expected to believe development is inevitable, one would hope suitable consideration is given to the impact of a three storey block overshadowing bungalows, the traffic issues given the narrowness of the lanes, the lack of parking, the access on Church Lane to the west, and the limited sight lines for motorists when emerging from Eldon Terrace or Church Lane to Burton Road. Local residents will also be aware we have recently seen repairs to the overwhelmed sewerage system, and so the impact of 50 more homes may not have been catered for.

I know nothing of planning matters, but I understand the original developer 10 or more years ago had looked to seek permission for 9 properties, and in the revised local plan, the size of the plot is considered to be sufficient for 17 homes, but I have been told by those better informed than I, this is a theoretical number based purely on the size of the plot and without consideration to access, parking, suitability, street scene and so on.

Please get involved in the consultation, even if you only ask one question e.g. ‘When will the woodland be replaced?' or ‘Why so few parking spaces?'

Bookmark and Share

Report this article as inappropriate

Comments

It's only me
At 15:23 on 7th May 2019, It's only me commented:
If this plot is developed for housing of any kind the biggest issue must be vehicular access. As mentioned above Eldon Terrace and Church lane have poor egress to Burton road and a rat run west along Church lane does not bear thinking about. A local has mentioned that the owner of the proposed development land has their mind on buying and demolishing a suitably sited bungalow in Alan Meadow to give access to this site.
John Cartlidge
At 17:28 on 7th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
The illustration in the leaflet (for what it's worth) clearly shows the access as Church Lane.
M 6000
At 00:14 on 8th May 2019, M 6000 commented:
John C. With multi million pound ventures like this , there often seems to be a background like mushroom mycelium .How amazing and fortunate for companies and people involved , that even after a court case saying the land must be replanted after the illegal action , it wasn't done for whatever reason, time ran out, and now, with the site having been kept sprayed and cleared instead of replanted, all those involved can make their booty if its built on . Wow , such luck ! What excellent marketing too , to have the land for homes for the elderly . Who could deny we need those?

Having griped about it feeling as if wrong doing has been rewarded , the damage has been done now and I do think we need more small apartments for the elderly , although sadly they may not be affordable to many in need? I like others,hope access to the premises and sewage issues are looked at carefully , and although the developers are saying now that these apartments for our local elderly would free up family homes locally ( which would be great) -- how long before they cant resist higher offers from outside the area ,and then there would be no local elderly person homed and no family home released?
Andy B
At 09:56 on 8th May 2019, Andy B commented:
If I was the Judge who ordered the replanting and knowing the Forestry Commission had failed to comply I would want to consider contempt of court proceedings! Also, not only did the previous owners of the land fell the trees but they also pulled down part of the culvert wall to give access to the equipment which did all the damage. The Council has failed to enforce a rebuiding of it. If this was done it would prohibit large vehicles accessing the very narrow lane up to the properties behind the school. But, being cycnica,l I imagine the Council will not pursue this. Perhaps the new Councillor (Mr Barker) can look into it.

The impact on the terrace houses opposite the field will be horrendous and would cause months of noise, dirt and disruption despite what is said in the blurb.

I agree that all residents should attend the meeting and express their concerns if they have any. The blurb is slanted heavily towards the environmental and social advantages but at the end of the day it all comes down to money and profit. The voices of the little people don't matter unless you are of school age and march on London!!!!

Dan
At 11:20 on 8th May 2019, Dan commented:
We simply can't keep building on every square of land in our town, or as is happening in many cases "garden grabbing" to squeeze an extra house, or knocking down a large house & gardens to build many smaller houses.

While greatly increased population in Neston may be good for businesses, do we have enough infrastructure for this ? Our roads are becoming more congested, our doctor's surgeries have no appointments just 15 mins after their phone lines open and the increased number of vehicles cannot be doing our semi-rural air quality any good at all.

The only way to kerb the urbanisation of our remaining green land is to object to large scale developments when the driving power is pure profit and greed like this.
Denno
At 15:04 on 8th May 2019, Denno commented:
I walk past this site daily and it is far from attractive so my preference is for it to be nicely landscaped but, of course, there is no money to be made doing that.Therefore, if the site has to be built on bearing in mind the poor access on to Church Lane probably nine dwellings preferably bungalows is the best option with a limitation on the number of cars per dwelling. M & S proposal for 36 cars with access on to Church Lane has to be a nonstarter.
Bob
At 16:46 on 8th May 2019, Bob commented:
It would seem to me that the problem with this type of development on this site will be access for all traffic to and from the site. As has been said already access to Burton Road is very poor. With school traffic it will become a nightmare.
Also there is the problem of services, doctors etc. It is already all most impossible to get an appointment at the local surgery's.
It is suggested that the development with have parking for 36 cars. These homes are for over 50's so there could be 2 cards for each house. Over 100 cars! Parking in Neston is already poor and full most of the time.
No doubt the developer will want the bridge removed in Church Lane.
John Cartlidge
At 17:12 on 8th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
The comment about the weed control that appears to have taken place - wonder if this caused the alleged disease to the trees under preservation orders leading for those to also be felled in 2015/16?
christine
At 17:18 on 8th May 2019, christine commented:
Why are we building constantly when the infrastructure is not in place. We are currently looking at 2.5/3 weeks for a doctor's appointment.
The access to this development ie via Eldon Terrace or Church Lane is so narrow it will not be able to cope with additional traffic, already doing school rush hour the access is a nightmare.
The development could have parking for 36 cars!!! where are they going to put the rest of them and visitors parking as well?
Once again greedy developers.
Denno
At 17:21 on 8th May 2019, Denno commented:
Two other problems with this site for 9 dwellings - 1) Because it is long and narrow the roads and drains would be expensive and 2) The stream would have to be protected to prevent anyone falling in but if the site is sold for only £250000 there should be plenty of money to cover such costs.Access on to Burton Road is a major headache indeed.
John Cartlidge
At 17:33 on 8th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Hi Denno,
McCarthy & Stone will almost certainly have a private overage agreement with the party they did the deal with - to pay the vendor a hefty bung if planning permission is obtained. Of note also with such developments it is not just the initial sale, it is the management fees, lease charges, maintenance contracts and so on that are the mecca for such companies because it is a life of income beyond the initial sale.
JCC
M 6000
At 17:36 on 8th May 2019, M 6000 commented:
John . Only the sprayer will know for sure what preparation was in the sprayer, so one can only hazard a guess at what overall effect it might have had , singly or compounded .The first crop of self seeded saplings that appeared the next year after the main cut, were just mowed down ( How sad as they would have had a doz yrs growth on them by now) . Don't know for sure when the first spraying started as it was only heresay in the earlier years.
M 6000
At 22:44 on 8th May 2019, M 6000 commented:
hearsay even!
Denno
At 23:00 on 8th May 2019, Denno commented:
JCC - Thank you for your research and drawing our attention to this site which has been an eyesore for many years.There is also Mr.Prince's dilapidated detached house that has been systematically vandalised and now probably only fit for demolition. It will be interesting to see what happens to both these sites.
Robin H
At 12:16 on 9th May 2019, Robin H commented:
For information, this site is already listed in the Town Council's Neston Neighbourhood Plan (Appendix E) as a potential housing site within the settlement area, estimated capacity 17 dwellings. The NP calls for priority to be given to sites within the existing footprint in order to protect the Green Belt. It prIoritises smaller homes for emerging and concealed households (single people and young families)and for elderly households to downsize. The provision of affordable market and social housing is a key objective for the NP; the targets for lower-priced homes are not being met. However, it also warns that infrastructure and services must be adequate and calls for design that will enhance the character of the area. Appendix E also lists some other actual and potential sites. These policies are key to the future of Neston as a healthy sustainable community but, four years on and despite proposals put to the Town Council, it is by no means clear that anyone is doing anything about them.
Denno
At 16:44 on 9th May 2019, Denno commented:

Robin H - Thanks for that research. I notice that there are two entrances to Church Lane from Burton Road and it may add to safety if they were made one way with parking only allowed on one side of each street. Probably the exit should be at the school end because the sight lines are better.
John Cartlidge
At 16:57 on 9th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Hi Robin,
The 17 homes was quoted in the original:

"in the revised local plan, the size of the plot is considered to be sufficient for 17 homes, but I have been told by those better informed than I, this is a theoretical number based purely on the size of the plot and without consideration to access, parking, suitability, street scene and so on."

Notwithstanding is how the cement and delivery lorries, tractors etc will get in for the construction. I have read elsewhere of size restrictions on construction vehicles which are promptly ignored (and not enforced by planning control) and the pavements are trashed by lorries driving over.

More comments I read on this topic tells me it will be a fait accompli with the developers playing the usual game of only serving the needs of the community, in accordance with government guidelines, with full consultation and all the other weasel words backed up by planning consultants and legal budgets the planning officials could only dream of. Next step will be put planning in for 5o, then be oh so accommodating when it is cut back to 40 – same ole same ole.
Andy B
At 16:59 on 9th May 2019, Andy B commented:
Exiting Church Lane by the school is not good - poor view to right and traffic not doing the 20mph! A one-way system would be safer if entering Church Lane and exit via Eldon Terrace. Parking (as now) would still be an issue as residents in Eldon Terrace park almost wherever they like, it seems. They also disregard the traffic prohibition from the brook heading North. Heaven only knows where people would park if there were more care than parking spaces if the intended build goes ahead.
CO Jones
At 18:39 on 9th May 2019, CO Jones commented:
It was an inevitable outcome when it became apparent that there was neither the appetite or the ability to enforce the tree replanting.

Have to say, as someone who lives a stones throw from the patch of land that sympathetic development seems the inevitable outcome but three floor doesn’t seem to tick that box.

The points raised about the extra cars using the road junctions are pretty much irrelevant in comparison to the school run traffic tuning Eldon Terrace and Church Lane into a school drop off roundabout and the drivers who feel that the signage indicating access only under the Wirral Way does not apply to them. They are a much bigger concern and it already happening.

If you dont like housing developments, green belt erosion, bowing to the developers “brown envelopes” and the slashing of planning red tape (which has made underhand developments like this far easier) then think about that when the elections come round. This is macro central Government policy playing out at the micro level. You cant really vote for it and then bleat about it. You like the green belt? Then do something about protecting it.
Robin H
At 09:17 on 10th May 2019, Robin H commented:
John, Yes, I wanted to make the connection with the Neighbourhood Plan which the Town Council 'owns' because it must be taken into account in planning applications; the NP is legally part of CWaC's Local Plan and also has things to say about housing need generally in Neston and the Green Belt. I also wanted to make the connection between development proposals and the Neighbourhood Plan injunction that regard should be had for infrastructure, which includes access and services like sewage, as well as 'softer' factors like health and care provision and transport. Neston's infrastructure is generally regarded as poor so the impact of additional development may be significant. The Plan also requires consideration of design issues and proposes how the Town Council should do this, so far not acted on. The Town Council will be consulted on any planning application that may be forthcoming but it's no good just saying you don't like it. You have to make a case based on legitimate planning considerations.
BHFL
At 13:56 on 11th May 2019, BHFL commented:
The settlement of Neston grew up in this place largely because of the water supply, the stream that runs through the dell near to the bridge and emerges next to, and runs alongside this proposed development. I for one am extremely disappointed to see that the replanting of trees was not carried out to make this, a beautiful and historic site, somewhere for humans to relax and unwind with flowers and birdlife abounding. Also, I was gutted to see that further up the stream, a wild and beautiful place, near to the Station Road/railway bridge now has a sold board on it, another dreaded development site. How was this allowed to happen? I am all in favour of brownfield building as in The Old Dairy at Fiveways, but why oh why despoil the very heart of our town and destroy the few wildlife habitats. Cramming in large developments is such a shame for us all. Money talks though.
Andy B
At 12:55 on 12th May 2019, Andy B commented:
Just as a p.s. to my earlier input and comments from others about previous owners, I recall seeing something, a year or two ago, about a planning application to build two houses on the site of the derelict house (having been sold for £200,000).
Denno
At 16:39 on 12th May 2019, Denno commented:
Andy B - From a traffic point of view that would be preferable to the M&S monstrosity with 36 vehicles if the planners would allow it.
Andy B
At 19:02 on 12th May 2019, Andy B commented:
It looks like M&S bought the plot subsequent to the planning application; perhaps time-expired (start work within 2 years of any approval being given)?
John Cartlidge
At 12:36 on 14th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
I’m tied up with work today, but this is a reminder if you wish to view the exhibition of the proposals at the Methodist Church, Park Street, today, Tuesday 14th May from 3 - 7 pm. If you do go, please report back with your findings.
christine
At 17:46 on 14th May 2019, christine commented:
I have just come back from consultation. I did not expect such a large development. The planning is for 50 apartments for "elderly" people. According to developers these people do not drive and will walk to the shops. They have allocated 36 parking spaces and will try and squeeze in 2/3 visitors parking spaces. Access is via Church Lane and they are currently thinking of widening the access way. The parking spaces opposite the entrance will be lost as the lorries and emergency vehicles will not be able to swing around. I dread to think how many trees we will lose not to mention the parking spaces.
Whilst I support a small scale development for retirement living. This is far too large for such a small confined space. Three storey high. Can you imagine what this will be like in the rush hour/school drop off with builders/cement mixers and huge building lorries? I have been told it will take 12 months to build.
Please attend meeting if you can, this is not what we need this is really bad news for Church Lane/Eldon Terrace. Oh they do have a buggy park - it seems that is how most of the residents commute!!!
John Cartlidge
At 18:05 on 14th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Hi Christine,

Thanks for taking the time to visit and report back - as you say the proposal is massive and in my lay view too much for the location.

As to a buggy park, well as stated in the original item, I am over 50, but not ready from my buggy yet!

The developers have the best planning consultants (lawyers) and compared to local authorities limitless funds to defeat any objection to secure their profits but hopefully the traffic / access issues will perhaps ensure the development is scaled back a little as it has been elsewhere.
Dan
At 18:12 on 14th May 2019, Dan commented:
The logic that the elderly do not drive is complete nonsense, and the developers know that. Being frank, anyone who can afford an expensive retirement apartment in that part of Neston can afford to run a car. I know a few retired couples that have more than one car too.

I suspect the developers want a smaller scale development in reality but use the logic to ask for as much as possible to see what will actually be allowed.

That Junction coming out of at Eldon Terrace is precarious at the best of times, you have to creep out, on an incline, being aware of cars coming from the right obviously but if turning left towards Neston you have to be aware of large vehicles coming around the bend by the bridge which may stick out into the road as the bus often does. Church Lane / Eldon Terrace is no place for an additional 30+ cars let alone the large building wagons.

This is cramming at its very worst and the location is just not fit for this purpose.
Dan
At 18:19 on 14th May 2019, Dan commented:
Additional: Going back to the parking issue - the developers said people would walk to the shops ? That might be ok on the flat and much closer from say Churchill Court, but can you really see an elderly person/couple walking from the proposed development up hill to the town centre to collect bags of shopping and carry them home ? This is the 21st century, most of them will drive.

What about visitors ? where do they park ? If the car park is already woefully too small for all residents to park then you can guarantee it will be full-to-capacity every day so visitors will be parking in Church Lane, Eldon terrace or worse around by the school.
John Cartlidge
At 18:50 on 14th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Hi Dan,

Quite - it is all bogus claims supported by some statistics the developer will find to prove the case and defeat any objection until it is proven and too late. I have seen in the past developers successfully argue the development will generate no traffic issues, build and clear off, only for the local authority to spend our money installing traffic lights or other traffic management devices.

Bonus for McCarty & Stone here of course is it is not a one off build and sell – management fees, tied in sale contracts and other charges mean this is a build that will keep on paying.

Who was it who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"?
John Cartlidge
At 19:03 on 14th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
We live in a road of 9 houses / households, and several times a day there is a delivery van, trade van, post van and so on, all in addition to the cars and parking space the householders and other visitors use.

Multiply this to 50 households?
M 6000
At 19:05 on 14th May 2019, M 6000 commented:
I didn't make it to see the plans unfortunately , but Christine mentions widening the access . Where and how? Is that shown on the plans, and which further trees possibly being felled are being referred to ?
CO Jones
At 19:48 on 14th May 2019, CO Jones commented:
We should dust off the Gilet Jaune's and start ramping up for some Cuckoo Lane treatment if they plan to fell more trees.
Denno
At 20:34 on 14th May 2019, Denno commented:
Perhaps Carrie Spacie,AMA, would be kind enough to run or publish the petition for maximum effect?
There is rightly a lot of concern about this development and there should be strength in numbers to hopefully influence the planners when making their decision.
Andy B
At 08:05 on 15th May 2019, Andy B commented:
Further to the comments following the "consultation" I put the question of what exactly their "interest" in the land means. I was told M&S do NOT own the land but have an arrangement with the current owner (the chap would not confirm any name etc) that if they get planning permission AND build they will pay the owner for the plot. Our local councillor was at the meeting and I advised him of this. He was very interested in the whole matter including the failure to replant.By the way these would not be exclusively for retired people, but for those over 60. With retirement age being 65 and older, some people would need to commute to work resulting in car use!
John Cartlidge
At 08:10 on 15th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Hi Andy,

The apartments are the over 50, not 60, and so for many 15 plus years before retirement.

The 'interest' is likely a tenants in common arrangement with existing owners, with overage (post planning bung) contract.)

JCC
John Cartlidge
At 08:21 on 15th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Hi Klaboum,

Your enthusiasm is most welcome. Such matters are usually settled by objection on those grounds the local authority are permitted to challenge, which are planning matters beyond my ken. If you can raise awareness, perhaps by leafleting or starting a Facebook group or similar this may encourage objections as and when a planning application is made.

Little else can be done until a planning application is submitted, however another angle is letters (on paper, in an envelope, with a stamp on) of complaint to Forestry Commission regarding their failure to secure a replanting order at this location.

Forestry Commission Complaint
620 Bristol Business Park
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol
BS16 1EJ


Dear Sirs,

Complaint: Brook Meadow, Neston CH64 9UT

I write to complain about the failing of Forestry Commission to secure a replanting order at the above location.

In 2005/06, woodland was illegally felled and a subsequent conviction and fine was ordered by the courts. At the time of the prosecution, Forestry Commission stated aim was to ensure the area was replanted, however failed to do so citing time elapsed and change of ownership.

It is clear to many at this location these excuses were groundless given the ownership of the land was clearly recorded, and the directors of the development company readily traceable. Whilst there may have subsequently been ‘on paper’ changes of ownership, there is still the need to ensure the area is restored

To resolve this complaint Forestry Commission must undertake the required replanting at this readily accessible location, if needs be supported by court order, and reinstate the landscape as before.

Yours faithfully,
Carrie Spacey
At 08:43 on 15th May 2019, Carrie Spacey responded:
@Denno...as a news website (as opposed to, say, a social media page) we must remain impartial. As such it wouldn't be appropriate for us to start or host a petition. However, in previous instances (on other topics) when people have advised us where a petition is available for signature, we have helped to make people aware of it. Equally, should McCarthy & Stone like to use this Comments section to answer some of the concerns raised, they would be welcome to.
christine
At 10:17 on 15th May 2019, christine commented:
I think the planning application will be submitted within a month I was led to believe by M&S. Interesting they could not disclose a price on the 1/2 bedroom apartments? From what I understand these will not be affordable homes for local people. With services charges/management fees can't see many people being able to afford them, so it will not free up the housing market. But we all know that is just a ploy. It is inevitable that they will eventually build on this site, but it is certainly the wrong type of developments. M&S practically described this development as "God's waiting room" They go out less, they do not work, they do not possess cars. We are talking of people 60 years old, most will still be working when you look at the retirement age of 67 years - so they will have a car and most likely partner as well.
Eldon Terrace and Church Lane have Victorian properties and these roads were not built for this amount of traffic/access etc.
John Cartlidge
At 10:27 on 15th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
A reminder the original brochure/flyers stated the apartments were to be sold to over 50's, which is a far larger group.
Kurt
At 11:47 on 15th May 2019, Kurt commented:
Interesting but frustrating “consultation” yesterday which I will not boar you with all the details. Some of the salient points:
Their traffic expert has been in consultation with the council traffic officer and is close to agreement re highways approval. The McCarthy town planner consultant does not agree there will be a traffic problem as “the majority of home owners will not drive and those that do will not use their cars frequently and only between the hours of 10 am to 3 pm” ( based on an average age of 78 despite the retirement age now increasing above 65). When challenge about the lack of pavement his reply was that the expected route to town was up Church Lane through the tunnel. Again when challenged about the traffic and cycling use of this route his reply was “ I walked the route the other day and saw nobody”. All through the consultation reference was made to the average age of 78, low car ownership and people who had gone through a life changing experience (e.g. loss of a partner).
Regarding the size of the development this apparently reflects the local character. This is based on the fact that there are similar developments within the town i.e. Parkgate Road, High Street, Hinderton Road. When challenged that these are within high building density areas not a semi-rural setting the above statement was simply re-iterated.
An interesting discussion with the architect re the potential for the top floor veranda to look directly into my bedrooms. She stated that the development was 70 meters away from my property. I was able to quickly prove to her that it was more like 30 meters to which she conceded the point but stated that it was irrelevant as the statutory distance is 20 m.
Why do I get the impression that this is a done deal even though common sense says the development is too big for the position ?
Kurt
At 11:51 on 15th May 2019, Kurt commented:
Re the statistic that the average age of the occupants is 78 and non car owners – I pressed for where this data had come from. This was derived from a Survey of 1000 residents in McCarthy and Stone developments conducted by McCarthy and Stone. Hmmm
John Cartlidge
At 11:59 on 15th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
As stated in my earlier comment, the developers will have a statistic to prove their case on each point, and a consultant to run rings around the local authority on each objection.
Kurt
At 12:03 on 15th May 2019, Kurt commented:
I also questioned whether the current TPO was to be discharged and if further trees were to be removed. Their reply was that there are several category U trees which are dangerous and to removed but would not confirm the number. When pressed on the number of trees to be re-instated they would not specify only the grounds would be landscaped for the residents to enjoy outside seating areas - I read this as lawned areas and flower beds.
Overall very disappointed in the lack of detail on all points especially considering they aim to subit for planning permission by the end of the month!
By the way construction is expected to take 12 months!!
Dan
At 12:04 on 15th May 2019, Dan commented:
The average age of 78 and not driving both sound like nonsense to me. My experience within the family of people in their 60's - 70's is that they are mostly still working, albeit part time, and almost all of them drive.

Neston is not renowned for the world's best public transport links therefore it will attract buyers who want to be semi-rural but need a car to get about easily. Its almost insulting what the developers are passing off as "fact".
CO Jones
At 13:10 on 15th May 2019, CO Jones commented:
The last few comments on here remind me of a line someone used on R4 the other day..

If you strangle the information / evidence for long enough, you will get the statistics you want..
Andy B
At 13:55 on 15th May 2019, Andy B commented:
Regarding age group flyer quotes " can be occupied by people over 60 years of age" 50 refers to the number of intended apartments.
Carrie Spacey
At 14:00 on 15th May 2019, Carrie Spacey responded:
@Kurt, apologies but I had to delete your last comment as the long url you posted threw the formatting of the page out. Please feel free to re-post, but first convert the url to a shortened version using www.bitly.com or similar. Thank you.
Kurt
At 14:07 on 15th May 2019, Kurt commented:
Interesting that McCarthy and Stone appear to have had planning permission refused on the British Legion site at Willaston on similar complaints as posted here.
Enter the following on the Cheshire west and Chester planning portal
18/01252/FUL
John Cartlidge
At 14:09 on 15th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Try this:

https://bit.ly/2YuqrAy

John Cartlidge
At 14:15 on 15th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Extract from the refusal at the Willaston British Legion site - note last para.

Refusal of Planning Permission
7 September 2018
1. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale and layout, would appear unduly dominant in the street scene and would fail to respect the local character or achieve a sense of place through appropriate layout and design. It therefore fails to accord with Policy ENV6 of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One) and saved Policy GB6 of the Ellesmere Port
and Neston Borough Local Plan.

2. The proposed development, by virtue of its layout and design, would result in overlooking and overshadowing of, and would appear unduly overbearing to, neighbouring residential properties
to the extent that it would have a significant adverse impact on the quality of life of neighbouring occupiers and would fail to preserve the amenity which those occupiers could reasonably
expect to enjoy. It therefore fails to accord with Policy SOC5 of the Cheshire West and Chester

1. The local planning authority considers that in this instance the scale of amendment necessary to achieve an acceptable outcome would result in a significantly different development and as such would be outside the scope of this application. It has therefore not been possible to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way to secure a development that will improve the
economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in line with the NPPF.
John Cartlidge
At 14:16 on 15th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
A quick glance at the planning application in Willaston reveals the local residents were 'all over it' and to my untrained eye quite expert and thorough in their submissions.
Dan
At 14:31 on 15th May 2019, Dan commented:
I recall the Willaston application. Being a previously used site for the British Legion it had far more likelihood of succeeding than this proposed development, but it was refused. With that in mind, this should be categorically refused on the same, if not stronger, grounds.

Anyone objecting to this Neston development should quote the Willaston development as a precedent.
Andy B
At 14:42 on 15th May 2019, Andy B commented:
Well done John. Arguments against fit this proposal 100%. A residents action group might be helpful.
Kurt
At 14:48 on 15th May 2019, Kurt commented:
It does give a glimmer of hope though. Anyone with any contacts?
christine
At 13:45 on 16th May 2019, christine commented:
I would urge people to please write to Forestry Commission about illegal felling of trees. John Cartlidge has kindly enclosed a template. I am sure some of those huge horse chestnut trees must have a preservation order on them. Wondering if there are any bats in the area? Loss of wildlife. If we have a tree preservation order on site it is more difficult to sell the site. It is worth a try.
I cannot believe that the traffic survey was agreed, upon what grounds?. Does anybody know who the local councillor for Neston is please? I live in Little Neston.
Thank you
Dan
At 13:51 on 16th May 2019, Dan commented:
Christine - I am pretty sure this falls under Martin Barker's extended area now as the local councillor. I believe he is already aware and involved (from comments on another page).

That said, it doesn't hurt to get support from all local councillors as you don't have to live in the immediate area to voice a concern. Andy Williams is Neston Councillor and Louise Gittins is Little Neston and I believe the leader of CWAC now.
John Cartlidge
At 21:10 on 17th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
If you haven't already, do please try a letter of complaint to Forestry Commission - I have

Forestry Commission (Complaints)
620 Bristol Business Park
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol
BS16 1EJ


Dear Sirs,

Complaint: Brook Meadow, Neston CH64 9UT

I write to complain about the failing of Forestry Commission to secure a replanting order at the above location.

In 2005/06, woodland was illegally felled and a subsequent conviction and fine was ordered by the courts. At the time of the prosecution, the publicly reported intention of the Forestry Commission was to ensure the area was replanted, however failed to do so citing time elapsed and change of ownership.

It is clear to many at this location these excuses were groundless given the ownership of the land was clearly recorded, and the directors of the development company readily traceable. Whilst there may have subsequently been ‘on paper’ changes of ownership, there is still the need to ensure the area is restored.

To resolve this complaint Forestry Commission need to now undertake the required replanting at this readily accessible location, if needs be supported by court order, and reinstate the landscape as before.

I look forward to receiving your confirmation the replanting will be promptly completed, with suitable legal protection in place to prevent illegal felling in future.

Yours faithfully,
M 6000
At 00:36 on 18th May 2019, M 6000 commented:
The reply

Thank you for your email . Whilst I am unable to share with you the specifics of this case, I can confirm the Forestry Commission investigated a case of unlicenced tree felling in 2006. Due to changes in land ownership, and the timescales of the investigation we were unable to secure prosecution or restocking on this site. Furthermore, for the CPS to accept a case for prosecution, a number of evidence test criteria must be met, which on this occasion this case was unable to satisfy. As such, the case has been closed with no further action.

Whilst I appreciate this may come as some disappointment to you, I can assure you that the Forestry Commission takes cases of unlicenced ) tree felling very seriously and is committed to pursuing remedial action wherever possible.

Kind regards

Ellie Littlejohn

Regulations Manager

Forestry Commission England – Forest Services

John Cartlidge
At 08:26 on 18th May 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
M 6000 - This reads like the reply Carrie received some years ago - is this a reply you have had? Also, complaint procedure at such bodies would i should imagine require a fuller timescale.
M 6000
At 08:53 on 18th May 2019, M 6000 commented:
Yes John, it was to the same question .
M 6000
At 09:21 on 18th May 2019, M 6000 commented:
As its same issue of the replanting not being followed up ,I thought I'd bring their response up again now , since the topic is relevant again , especially as the FC can be so slow to respond - (even with chasing, my reply took 3 months ) . Also it will be interesting to see once more people complain, whether the FC 's 'facts' remains the same. On reflection I probably should have said that my reply was from earlier (last year I think)
Better the devil you know
At 00:59 on 19th May 2019, Better the devil you know commented:
Objecting on the grounds of traffic is unlikely to be successful, trust me for that many vehicles based on usual transport assessment basis the council will unlikely refuse on those grounds and if they did in my opinion they would lose at appeal (although I’ve been wrong before) Utilities, it won’t be seen as a significant impact as they will rely on infrastructure providers to comment, who won’t object as they won’t have any reason. (Foul to sewer, surface water to watercourse). My advice, over looking, development out of scale of the locality, that’s your best bet. Church lane doesn’t have large developments, although dont forget behind the site is a rather large/high school building? If that was me I would use that as basis for scale.

Quick note, you knock the council planners, and mention brown envelopes, they are doing their job based on the policies put in front of them. For large development they make the recommendations to committee who ultimately decide. I know some of them, they are decent people.



BHFL
At 19:19 on 26th May 2019, BHFL commented:
I travelled down the first half of Church Lane one evening this week and saw that cars were parked all along Eldon Terrace and also along the relevant section of Church lane. Obviously when all the residents are home from work they park by their homes, and why not? Just room to drive a car through cautiously, with no space for 2 way traffic until nearer the Bridge/tunnel. If the development goes ahead then all hell will break loose for the poor current residents. Where will they park? Just try imagining the chaos as large construction vehicles with ready mix or roof trusses try to negotiate the narrow lane and turn in by the brook. it is a ludicrous plan that will upset a peaceful area of Neston.
christine
At 16:05 on 27th May 2019, christine commented:
I totally agree with BHFL's comments. When I attended the presentation with the developers, I was told that they were thinking of enlarging the entrance by the brook in order to have a two way traffic system by means of entry. When I asked them how they intend doing that they replied by blocking off parking across the road so lorries and cars can swing round. As most residents know Church Lane and Eldon a lot of people already have two cars and are often forced to park elsewhere, if you are going to reduce parking spaces, I dread to think the consequences.
Andy B
At 19:02 on 27th May 2019, Andy B commented:
Because of historical traffic problems in the lane (pre 1981) there is a motor vehicle prohibition (can't miss the large yellow sign but some people ignore it) except for access to properties, effective from the brook in a Northerly direction. There shouldn't be ANY parking at all and this would include any overspill from Eldon Terrace or any new properties on the land. Better enforcement is needed particularly with the increase volume of bikers speeding down the lane.
Denno
At 19:17 on 27th May 2019, Denno commented:

No Planners in their right mind should allow that many vehicles from the new development to access Burton Road so close to the school.
Any way,there should be a one way system for existing vehicles i.e.
IN from Church Lane and OUT via Eldon Terrace with parking to one side only so what is stopping that from happening now immediately?
New User
At 17:01 on 30th May 2019, New User commented:
Shortly after the original popular trees were cut down,I was told the trees were planted at the end of World War 1 as a memorial to those men of Neston who had lost their lives during the conflict. Each tree represented a person killed. Unfortunately I can not recall who told me this, or if there is any documentation regarding this possibly some form of legal covenant.
Kurt
At 22:30 on 3rd July 2019, Kurt commented:
I have just discovered that the planning application was submitted on May 31st. We now have until Friday to comment on application!
No notice was posted locally, I have not been notified by the planning office despite backing onto the proposed development and I have searched the planning website weekly without discovering the application.
The application number is 19/02087/FUL.
We need to act quickly or else this will be passed without objection !!
John Cartlidge
At 07:23 on 4th July 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Link to the planing application as below. I will lodge my objection today and would ask you all to do the same.

https://pa.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=PSDJCWTEHSO00
Denno
At 08:00 on 4th July 2019, Denno commented:
Well spotted Kurt and I have objected and alerted Cllr. Martin Barker.Surely the Planning Dept. should be censored for not going through the proper procedure and another reason for refusal.
Kurt
At 09:05 on 4th July 2019, Kurt commented:
I have had a reply from Martin Barker who informs me that we have until July 22nd to register comments on the application. I don't understand why the Neston Town Council stated Friday 5 July but I'm sorry if I have caused any confusion
John Cartlidge
At 11:05 on 4th July 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Hi Kurt,

I likewise alerted Councillor Baker and he has replied in equal terms.

I have also post my objection on CW&C planning.

Fingers crossed!
Andy B
At 13:05 on 4th July 2019, Andy B commented:
No public notices evident in Church Lane so far, which prevents interested non-residents from being able to comment. What is the planning office playing at?
Denno
At 14:34 on 4th July 2019, Denno commented:
The present position is notices have just gone out in the post and will also be posted around the site soon.Councillors will be notified by e-mail with 21 days for objections to be registered.
Better the devil you know
At 18:06 on 4th July 2019, Better the devil you know commented:
The planning team has been decimated by ongoing public sector cuts. While many might cheer at this as a result I understand decisions are taking up to 5/6 months to be determined. So don’t panic, everybody will have plenty of opportunity to respond. Ensure any comments are linked to policy, it gives the argument weight.
Kurt
At 12:20 on 5th July 2019, Kurt commented:
Rightly or wrongly I have posted my letter from the council on the local telegraph pole with a couple of comments about the size of the development. the more people that know hopefully the more will object.
Denno
At 17:52 on 5th July 2019, Denno commented:
My objections are - 1)Development too large and overlooks existing properties. 2) Access and exit too near school entrance thus adding to the danger to children especially with all the cars parked in Church Lane and Eldon Terrace as well as Burton Road 3)M&S were refused planning on the BL site in Willaston 4) The site is more suited to OAP bungalows with a restriction on the number of cars.
Like Kurt I too hope my comments help.
M 6000
At 00:48 on 7th July 2019, M 6000 commented:
Both OH and I have attempted to register on the council site to place our objections, but without success - so will be posting .
Denno
At 01:10 on 7th July 2019, Denno commented:
M6000 - I found difficulty in registering too but I managed to do so in the end.By letter will be fine but include App No : 19/02087/FUL in your heading to the CWaC Planning Dept. Let us hope for a satisfactory outcome.
M 6000
At 01:17 on 7th July 2019, M 6000 commented:
I wasted a good half hour messing with it . It said it couldn't verify registration and I tried with two of my email addresses and my OH with one . He got registered but it then wouldn't accept his log in as being correct. The heading to press for making your objections was inactive too. .
John Cartlidge
At 09:15 on 8th July 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Might be a daft question - do the online comments on the planning portal count as 'objections' if the comment is opposed to the plan, or do we have to write formally?
Better the devil you know
At 09:24 on 8th July 2019, Better the devil you know commented:
If you are looking to 'object' it is usually best to make this very clear in your response. Regardless of this if your concerns are valid material planning considerations then the case officer will pick up on them anyway.

If it goes online it counts as much as a formal written response. Indeed the planners probably prefer comments going directly online.
John Cartlidge
At 09:33 on 8th July 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Thank you. I started my comment with "I object.."
Kurt
At 17:22 on 8th July 2019, Kurt commented:
I see the official planning notice has been taped to the telegraph pole today. better late than never I suppose
Kurt
At 19:27 on 8th July 2019, Kurt commented:
I have just been looking through the Arboricultural details on the planning website. If Im reading it correctly a further 25 trees are ear marked for removal but not a single tree has been identified for replacement.
Landscaping only talks about a pleasant garden for residents to enjoy.
Kurt
At 08:21 on 12th July 2019, Kurt commented:
Reply from the forestry commission:As you are aware, following unlicensed tree felling on the site, a Restock Notice was issued. As there was non-compliance with the Restock Notice this was followed with an Enforcement Notice in 2013. The Forestry Commission does, so far as its resources allow, as much as it can to ensure restocking takes place where there is evidence of unlicensed felling. However, due to the timescales and resources involved, our Regulations team at national office have not been able to take any further court action regarding non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice and therefore the case has been closed with no further action.
Thank you for your enquiry.
Kind regards,
Robert.

Robert Burns
Woodland Officer
M 6000
At 08:53 on 12th July 2019, M 6000 commented:
I wonder why an enforcement notice which I presume was valid in itself, but ignored by guilty party and not taken further in law, doesn't remain as an encumbrance on the property when sold on?
John Cartlidge
At 09:10 on 12th July 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
I have seen similar responses, and indeed have received a similar response to my own enquiry. The question arising in my mind is how is it an ‘offender’ is not contactable to enforce an order, yet is readily contactable to transact in property, be party to a planning application etc. It is stated on the planning application contact is care of a local resident (and estate agent). I am staggered as to the failings of the ‘powers that be’ with regards to the removal of woodland and attempted profit from development of the land.
M 6000
At 09:27 on 12th July 2019, M 6000 commented:
Mmmmmm!
Kurt
At 12:46 on 12th July 2019, Kurt commented:
Interesting
Noticed 2 guys measuring up on pathway that runs alongside the brook. On talking to them they are costing for replacement of the rail fence for the council. Coulnt get much more out of them but one did comment that he "would have thought that the council would have better things to spend money on".
Do the council need planning permission to say replace rail with 2m high fence or can they just do that on public safety grounds ?
Or am I just getting paranoid??
Kurt
At 13:08 on 12th July 2019, Kurt commented:
Even more interesting
The McCarthy and Stone planning statement reminds the council that " for this average McCarthy and Stone development the relevant local authority will receive a grant of approximately £378,000 through the Government initiative, to spend as it sees fit"
This must be a fair incentive for a cash strapped council?
Why does the government need to incentivise local developments?
Better the devil you know
At 13:27 on 12th July 2019, Better the devil you know commented:
Is the fence by the brook? If so I suspect the Council are thinking it would cost them more money if somebody fell in and hurt themselves!
Dave Carter
At 20:20 on 12th July 2019, Dave Carter commented:
Section 106 Kurt, it applies to any substantial development. S106 money from the Sainsburys development has paid for many improvements to the market square, and surrounding areas including part of the money for the Sytchcroft play park. Actually its not for the council to spend as it sees fit, it has to be spent to mitigate any negative effects of the development. Which the council needs reminding of sometimes.
Kurt
At 20:26 on 12th July 2019, Kurt commented:
Not disputing the money will be spent wisely just cannot understand the logic of the incentive. The quote was from the MCCarthy and Stone planning statement. They state it can be spent as the council sees fit - looks like yet another inaccuracy in their documentation?
Carrie Spacey
At 22:54 on 12th July 2019, Carrie Spacey responded:
The comment with the long url has been deleted, as it throws the page format out. Please feel free to re-post, after using a shortener app such as bitly.com.
Dave Carter
At 10:47 on 13th July 2019, Dave Carter commented:
Reading the application again, the £378,000 refers to New Homes Bonus, not S106. I thought hat this had gone, Neston Town Council doesn't get it any more. It is given to CW&C for total housing supply growth. It used to be allocated to the areas in which that housing growth occurred, but apparently not any more.
Kurt
At 14:11 on 15th July 2019, Kurt commented:
Only 23 objections raised so far and just over a week before closing date. Can we all ask as many people to raise objections please.
CO Jones
At 22:39 on 15th July 2019, CO Jones commented:
Dare i say, there probably not a great deal of objections because that planning portal website is utter s***.

I have tried two email addresses, one of which is already registered and active on the council portal.

Given up. Have tried for an hour! If it gets built, Blame the appalling website.
Kurt
At 22:48 on 15th July 2019, Kurt commented:
Why is such much stacked against the residents? You are the third person I have heard this complaint from and witnessed this first hand on Sunday - took about 4 goes to get the thing registered but worked eventually. I emailed Catherine Reay but have not received a reply. Please preserve - don't let the developers win by default.
christine
At 22:49 on 15th July 2019, christine commented:
Currently only 28 objections. Feel that a lot of people are not aware of this development. I understand that nobody from Church Lane or Eldon Terrace received any notification of the planning application. Very underhand.
Kurt
At 23:25 on 15th July 2019, Kurt commented:
Catherine its the system thats at fault :
"the Council is only required to notify adjoining properties, being properties that share a common boundary with the site. Properties separated by a road are not considered to be adjoining. "

Not a very transparent system which is stacked against the residents.
CO Jones
At 08:14 on 16th July 2019, CO Jones commented:
Still cant comment and that is with 2 registered email addresses, both of which log onto the CWAC website no problem but then fail at the planning portal.

I have reset passwords, had confirmation emails through, clicked on links, logged out and logged back in, turned the computer off and back on, tried from the office on a different machine (where I am now). It is utterly useless.

I am looking for a pigeon in the Yard outside the office to hook me up ..
Kurt
At 08:53 on 16th July 2019, Kurt commented:
You can always send in your objection by email to
catherine.reay@cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk
She is the senior planning officer in charge of the application and will paste into onto the comments.
You can also complain about the website at the same time.
?
John Cartlidge
At 08:59 on 16th July 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
As Kurt says but CC or use the planning contact email address:

A possible alternatives to the online system (which I also had problems with) please consider an email to

planning@cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk

Re: Brook Meadow Church Lane Neston CH64 9UT

Dear Sirs,

Planning application -
Reference 19/02087/FUL
Alternative Reference PP-07847875
Application Received Fri 31 May 2019
Address Brook Meadow Church Lane Neston CH64 9UT

I write to object to the above planning application.

The Cheshire West Planning portal is not working correctly and I request this email is recorded as a formal objection to the above proposal.

My specific objections are …

Do include your name and full address.
CO Jones
At 09:11 on 16th July 2019, CO Jones commented:
That is useful. Thanks all.

I will get it cracked tonight and not waste any more of my firms time.
christine
At 09:57 on 16th July 2019, christine commented:
Surely, if the planning portal is not working properly, the deadline to this application should be extended. I fail to understand why we have such a small number objecting. This development will affect so many people, the congestion of traffic and access to the development is unthinkable.
CO Jones
At 10:12 on 16th July 2019, CO Jones commented:
There has not been a great deal of co-ordination has there though?

Not looking to lay any blame anywhere as anyone could have organised a campaign group (including me) but I have to admit that I tens to look to retired people for the lead on this ;-)

Cuckoo Lane. We should have learned from that
Kurt
At 10:17 on 16th July 2019, Kurt commented:
We have put notices up and knocked on local doors on surrounding area but your right Mr Jones - a petition tends to take a lot of time which is at a premium when youre working.
Kurt
At 10:18 on 16th July 2019, Kurt commented:
A fair number of people agreed to object but yet to materialise
BHFL
At 19:29 on 16th July 2019, BHFL commented:
planning@cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk This works and you get an email reply, and your comment will appear online.
Jacqui
At 20:36 on 16th July 2019, Jacqui commented:
To C O. Jones. Yes they do plan to fell a further 26 trees on the Brook Meadow site. One of them I the magnificent Horse Chestnut tree I have looked at every day from my sitting room window for the last 10 years, heartbreaking !We have pipistrelle bats around here, they fly around my garden at dusk each night and I hate to think that they may roost in this massive old tree.
Jacqui
At 20:46 on 16th July 2019, Jacqui commented:
I sent in my objection by snail mail this morning. I wish everyone would come to the site and have a look at the trees they plan to fell. You need to walk up the unmade road and they are up there.
Jacqui
At 21:29 on 16th July 2019, Jacqui commented:
To John Cartlidge. Isnt it illegal to destroy trees where there is a strong possibility that pipistrelle bats are roosting. These little bats come flying from the bottom of my garden where the tree is .
John Cartlidge
At 21:37 on 16th July 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Hi undefined, I have no particular knowledge or expertise in this area - as a lay person I've experienced building works in a house scuppered by roosting bats in an attic and I have a vague recollection bats will change roosts through the season as weather changes - perhaps the abandoned house is also a roost and should not be demolished. If there is any party with environment / planning expertise might I ask them to 'chirp' up.
CO Jones
At 07:08 on 17th July 2019, CO Jones commented:
I emailed my objectoin last night so hopefully, it should appear on the comments pages today. It seems more people have done the same as the numbers are creeping up.

Kurt
At 16:45 on 19th July 2019, Kurt commented:
I emailed the Council requesting the Preapplication enquiry information offered to McCarthy and Stone before the application was submitted. Some interesting details :
The following developer sums for offsite enhancement would be sought:
Allotment - £4,657.50 allocated to Burton Road allotment for improvements in line with NSALG guidance.
Parks & Recreation - £37,260 allocated to Stanney Fields park, this open space typology covers a wide range of functions/features.
This development would trigger a capital sum of £10,881 plus a 10 years maintenance sum of£20,090. This should be allocated to Netherpool pitch, which is not within the ward but a priority site for the PPS locality.
Kurt
At 16:48 on 19th July 2019, Kurt commented:
On the topic of trees:
Some of the trees within the site are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. However, there is a somewhat complex history to the status of the trees on this site. It is believed that the Forestry Commission previously issued a restocking notice on the land for the trees that have previously been removed to be replaced. However, there were issues with the restocking notice that meant it couldn’t be enforced. The current TPO was apparently made to reflect the trees to be replanted and so it might not accurately reflect what it currently on the site. at the Forestry Commission may be able to provide further details.Notwithstanding this, the Council’s Tree Officer has advised that this is unlikely to affect the proposal. Given the nature of the site and the protected open space to the north-west, any additional
planting would be welcomed and any further formal application should be accompanied by an Arboricultural Survey.
John Cartlidge
At 20:05 on 19th July 2019, John Cartlidge commented:
Up to 60 objections in the comments section on the planning portal - emails to planning are being posted by the Council staff so worry not about all the registering faff - just email ensuring you quote the planning reference etc and it might seem like stating the obvious, but if you object, say so - 'I object to this proposal'. Please if you are commenting / objecting, please make it easy for your objection to be accepted - waffle about what you do and what you think is typically of little consequence - my newest hero is Nirvana Church Lane Neston CH64 9UT - please note their comments.
christine
At 15:03 on 20th July 2019, christine commented:
Interestingly, I note there is no mention of price. I think some people are under the impression that these will be affordable accommodation, not M&S. There will also be service charges. Be careful what you wish for as the saying goes. The infrastructure cannot cope with this development.
Andy B
At 11:53 on 21st July 2019, Andy B commented:
At the meeting with M&S I floated an estimate of £270,000 for one-bed and 300,000+ for the 2 bed appt. The guy did not argue!! The sewer system has only just been upgraded to cope with the current volume of waste. Another 45 properties could cause real problems.
Kurt
At 13:44 on 21st July 2019, Kurt commented:
Interesting article in the Financial Times last year
McCarthy & Stone struggles to attract ‘last-time buyers’
Profits fall at retirement housebuilder amid market slowdown and rise of equity release mortgages.
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/9a7aedda-8b39-11e8-b18d-0181731a0340

McCarthy & Stone argues that if it is not allowed to continue to sell its homes on a leasehold basis and charge ground rent, it would have to charge more up front. It estimates a price raise of about £15,000 per apartment. At present, the company also sells the income stream from ground rent onwards to investors.
It is lobbying the government for an exemption from the proposed ban, arguing that the extra revenue helps pay for communal areas. According to its own figures, shared spaces in its developments account for about a third of the total floorspace, and include things like “wellbeing” suites and mobility scooter rooms.

Price will depend on locate > Prestatyn is 155 -259k . I was told 200 -250 k in the "consultation"
Kurt
At 14:52 on 22nd July 2019, Kurt commented:
One document that has either just appeared or I have missed on the Planning Application Documents page is the FINANCIAL VIABILITY APPRAISAL. Suggests the site is worth >£500k and the finished building worth >£11M with > £2M profit for poor old M&S.
Don't understand the language very well - cant understand what the argument about affordable housing in the report.
Any accountants out there that can translate into laymans terms?

You need to log in before you can do that! It's only a quick registration process to join the AMA network and completely free.

Sign in or join now to post a comment
Find a Local Business Get the CH64 Newsletter!
Loading...
Back to Top
© Copyright 2005-2019 AboutMyArea

AboutMyArea Privacy Policy

CH64: Neston Home | News | Community | Business Directory | Villages in CH64 | Council & MP Matters | Local Services | Shop, Eat, Drink & Stay in Neston | Lifestyle | Your Photos | Things To Do In Neston | Advertise & Contribute | Best of Neston & CH64 | Who, When, Why? | Neston News Archive | Contact Us
AboutMyArea: Home | Site Map | Contact AboutMyArea | Terms & Conditions | Community Guidelines | Franchise Opportunity | Help

About Cookies