Churchill to fight Manchester over West Didsbury refusal
The retirement living developer will argue that its plans for 37 apartments on the corner of Lapwing Lane and Palatine Road are not in fact “excessive in size”, as stated by the city council earlier this year.
Churchill Retirement Living will put its case to the Planning Inspectorate but a date for the hearing has not yet been set.
The proposals centre on the site of the former Greenfinch pub and feature 24 one-bedroom flats and 13 with two bedrooms.
Churchill claims the scheme would help free up family housing in the area and meet the need for specialist accommodation for the UK’s ageing population.
Manchester City Council was critical of the appearance of Churchill’s scheme and said it would have a detrimental impact on neighbours.
A decision notice handed down in February states that the “design, appearance, and choice of materials of the proposed development would result in a form of development that would not be sympathetic or beautiful, and would erode the special character of the Albert Park Conservation Area”.
It added that the scheme would result in a “real and perceived loss of privacy” for residents of number 114 Palatine Road.
Planning Issues is leading on the application. The project team also includes Air Quality Consulting, E3P, Barrells, Ecus, Paul Basham Associates, AWP, DevComms, and Soiltechnics.
To learn more about the application, search for reference number 138765/FO/2023 on Manchester City Council’s planning portal.
I’m not one to usually be against retirement homes, however Didsbury is a vibrant community for young professionals after they graduate and move down from Fallowfield. This site would be much better used as apartments for these young professionals, ideally as flats for first time buyers.
By MC
@MC – it should be a mixed community. If said old people with big houses want to stay in the area, they could move here, their old houses can be converted into flats for the young professionals. Places shouldn’t cater to only one age group. Not all old fogeys want to live in ex-urbs.
By NJ
This is a horrific scheme in an area of high quality buildings. Manchester needs to reject garbage low quality architecture on prominent sites if it really aspires to be a credible major European city.
By Dr B
I grew up in West Didsbury, I watched it decline and congest with the infestation of young professionals, what do you think old fogeys do? Clutter the pavements with mobility scooters, sit at home dribbling and rocking in their chairs???
By Old fogey
@ August 23, 2024 at 4:29 pm
By NJ
Spot on. Mixed age communities are better – more coherent and with the generations learning different perspectives on life from each other. The local mutual support networks too.
By Rye
The complaint about loss of privacy is a bit rich considering that the Greenfinch was a very lively pub and dinner venue on that site. Retired people have spent their lives serving the community, contributing to the economy and raising families. They have as much right to be on that site as anyone else – they still have a lot to give.
By Francis
Having been a regular at The Greenfinch until we moved away, the privacy argument is a bit of a surprise. Watched many a City game on the big screens and locals who have lived in the area frequented it. West Didsbury, like any community needs to have provision for all ages, and for the whole life cycle. It’s opposite the tram stop for wider connections and a busy bus route. It’s a low generating traffic proposal and given that the area was already known as “Flatland”, enough provision for young professionals or whoever is not the priority, elderly persons’ accommodation is the growing need in this country.
By Dave