27 January 2010 – new plans submitted
Ingersley Vale LLP have submitted a new planning application in which they propose changes to the types of houses. I understand that this has been necessitated by the changes in the market for new property brought about by the economic situation. To view the plans please go to the CEC planning portal, enter the Planning Reference 09/4033M and click Search.
The owners of Ingersley Vale (Clough) Mill, Ingersley Vale DLL, have now submitted a planning application for the re-development of the presently derelict site.
Under planning law they are required to consult the community in advance of submitting their application and this consultation took place on Tuesday 4th March 2008 at Hollin Hall Hotel. The event was attended by a large number of residents and other interested parties.
The proposal includes four adjacent sites along the Vale:
Site A: two blocks of three 3 bedroom town houses to be built on the open ground at the town end of the Vale, just behind Rainow Mill (J. McNulty’s glass works).
Site B: demolish all the 1960s brick industrial buildings before the mill and replace these with two blocks each of 12 apartments.
Site C: restore the mill to become 24 apartments.
Site D: demolish the derelict warehouse beyond the mill and replace this with two blocks each of six 4 bedroom town houses.
The planning application can be seen online at the MBC Planning website. Enter the application number 08/0791P, click on the application number, then on documents and the list of available documents will be displayed. There are 88 separate documents covering this application. Some of them are very large indeed! The drawings tend to be a reasonable size; the reports are generally much bigger. When you click to load a document look at the bottom of the screen for the size of the document – if it is larger than you want to load just delete the window.
Meeting held Tuesday 1st April 2008 to consider the proposals. As there was as yet no formal planning application there would be no recommendation to the borough planning committee.
Present: BTC councillors (less one), Graham Evans (Borough Councillor for East Bollington), Harold Davenport (Borough Councillor for Rainow), by invitation Ted Clunn (Developers’ partner), Messrs Barrett, Jones and one other (Developers’ architects), and about 20 members of the public.
The meeting began with a presentation from the developers’ architects. As most members of the audience had seen the presentation of proposals at Hollin Hall on 4th March they concentrated on the changes they are making to the proposals. These are as follows:
- The fronts of the town houses on Site D (to the east of the mill) are being redesigned to echo the front of the mill, with a couple of stone towers in front of the window line and more stone finishes to the front walls.
- Inclusion of a further 20 parking spaces for residents and their guests. In answer to a question from Cllr Edwards regarding designated visitor parking, these will have controlled access to keep the public out.
- Public car parking will be provided at the far end of Site D where the concrete hard standing is today.
Mr Barrett confirmed that there would be 66 units of which 15 would be affordable housing. 6 would be 3 bed, 12 would be 4 bed. The 4 bed units would each have room for 3 cars. The 1 bed units would also have a room suitable for use as an office for home workers.
The private side of those units on Sites A, B and D would face Ingersley Park, avoiding problems of overlooking from the public side of the vale.
The water powered electricity generation plant would generate up to 200kw, generally enough to power the whole development. Surplus power would be disposed of to other local users or the grid; shortages would be drawn from the grid.
Traffic to, from and at the development, both during and after construction, was the most contentious item of the discussion – Mr Barrett said that a survey had been carried out and he claimed that a commercial site, with light industry and offices, would generate more traffic than 66 domestic units. Any problems with the access roads he regarded as a problem for the highway authorities and beyond his brief.
The floor was opened first to councillors and then to the public to ask questions.
Cllr Sockett asked about the management of natural water – Mr Jones explained that there would be a pond in front of Site D. This would be used to store surface water and prevent it immediately running to waste in the river. This water, grey water, would be used for secondary purposes in the development such as toilet flushing, (and car washing and garden watering). The ponds would also contain water circulation pipes to supply heat pumps – a method of extracting heat from the water and use it for heating the buildings.
Cllr Hibbert questioned the suitability of the public sewer to take an additional 66 units. The site is passed by a 9″ sewer main which presently serves only 5 properties. It would handle 66 additional properties. There was no discussion regarding the capacity of the sewer further down the vale and through the village as other properties join it.
Cllr Hibbert asked about the pinch points in the lane leading up the vale. The developers considered that this problem would be resolved by the removal of 3 or 4 cubic metres of rock.
The clerk read out a letter received from Mr David Hooley, Managing Director of Pumping & Technical Services Ltd., located at Rainow Mill, Ingersley Vale. He was not against re-development. However, he noted that the Ingersley Mill site was zoned for light industrial use, not domestic. He would pay for part of the proposed development site for use as a car park [Site A, the first part that was until recently used as a car park]. He suggested that the site should be used for a development of small industrial and office units. He thought the warehouse [on Site D] should be demolished and walled in for use as a public car park. He claimed that the developers are not owners of various parcels of the land included in the development. He claimed they have fenced off the parking area although that area is not owned by them. He wrote that they also claimed to own land beyond the end of the lane at Waulkmill Farm and questioned whether the developers would be wanting to develop that in due course. He also posed questions regarding land registration.
Cllr Graham Evans expressed concern over the developers submitting ‘Working Amendments’ once planning permission had been granted. He noted that previous experience had shown that huge changes could be made to the original plans permitted as the development progressed and without adequate consideration by the public or the council. It was explained that under new planning regulations working amendments are no longer permitted and that it is more usual for a new planning application to be submitted, providing the usual controls.
Cllr Graham Evans was concerned that there should be a high proportion of family homes in the development – he alluded to the concern over falling school rolls in Bollington leading to closures. There are 24 family sized homes in the development.
A Church Street resident questioned the traffic situation. Mr Barrett reiterated that it was a Highways problem and not one for the developers. A second Church Street resident said that there had been a huge increase since the Linden Homes development had been completed and that an assessment needed to be made against the present traffic load, not how things were when there was industrial activity in the Vale, before Linden.
Liz Katri, Ingersley Vale resident, was concerned about pedestrian safety. Mr Jones indicated that only 12 units required access along the lane and under the aqueduct. Changes to the road would provide better visibility.
Kieran Storey was also concerned about walkers. Mr Jones said that they planned to open up a high level footpath from the top of the sloping path beside Ingersley Mill and then along the hillside and the leat to the farm drive at the far end. He added that all construction traffic would access the entire site through the first access point so that none would need access under the aqueduct. There may need to be a priority system in place at the narrowest points but this had yet to be worked out with the highways authority.
Andrew Roberts, North End Farm (on Kerridge Hill with access through the vale), wanted to know whether vehicular access to the top end of the vale would be maintained throughout the construction of the development. It would be.
A resident commented on the traffic situation and pointed out that there is a considerable difference between the timing of traffic between and industrial location and a domestic location.
A resident asked if the Traffic Report would be made available. It would be submitted with the planning application. The same resident was also concerned about parking spaces and there was some explanation of the government’s restrictions on planners and developers with respect to parking spaces. It was also pointed out that bicycle sheds were now a requirement of such a development.
After the meeting it was ascertained that a planning application would be submitted to Macclesfield Borough Council on Friday 4th April 2008. Planning web site.
Bollington Civic Society did not comment at this meeting – we preferred to use the opportunity to listen to the comments of others. All this comment will now be considered, together with the proposal actually submitted to MBC, and a formal response made in due course.
The Haunted Mill! YouTube video made at the mill – not for those of a nervous disposition!
Do you have an interest in the past,