Persimmon tries with long-awaited Stockport housing
Persimmon Homes has submitted a full planning application to Stockport Council for 206 homes and parkland with three dedicated play areas at Midland Road, a site first granted outline consent in 2006.
The proposals for the site, which lies between Cheadle Hulme, Davenport and Bramhall, include a range of detached, semi-detached and mews homes and one-bedroom apartments.
Persimmon said that the scheme can “create a healthy community for new and existing residents, while assisting Stockport Council in meeting its objectively assessed housing need and add to the local authority’s revenues”.
Outline planning for the Midland Road site, close to the Cheadle Hulme recycling centre and behind Jewson on Adswood Road, was first granted in 2006. The site was used as a tip until 1974 before the land was capped in the early 1990s.
A previous proposal for the site saw a consent granted for 163 managed flats for the elderly, which expired in December 2016. Persimmon submitted a scoping report for this iteration of the development in February this year.
The housebuilder said that the parkland and associated footpaths and cycle paths included in the project will provide expanded opportunities for recreation. The site in total is 38.3 acres and lies to the west of Midland Road, around 2km to the north of Bramhall’s village centre. The project is intended to take four years to deliver.
Mark Cook, regional managing director of Persimmon Homes North West said: “The building of new homes is crucial to economic growth. has a direct impact on economic output, averaging 3% of GDP in the last decade. For every new home built, up to two new jobs are created for a year.
“From a local economic perspective, the building of new homes plays a significant role in attracting and retaining a skilled workforce and generating additional income for existing residents and revenues for local authorities.
“The expenditure of households is a crucial element of the economics of the local area. Increased population and their spending power is a key component that underpins the success of local businesses. Whilst this will be gradual, the overall development will contribute positively to the sustainable economic growth of the local area.”
When tests were carried out on the land they found asbestos under the ground and deemed the site unsuitable. They said the land should not be disturbed. Now it seems perfectly fine to be built on and no reason for the change has been produced, why now is it ok?
By Ashley
Should make for good rush hour congestion on surrounding roads
By Chris
I live in this area and I don’t want this development and my neighbours don’t want it neither
By Laura-ann Atkins
The roads are already congested. Getting an appointment at the doctors takes weeks already. Our local school is over subscribed . The land is heavily contaminated, so as usual profits before people. A very unhappy Midland Road resident here!
By Heather Wynne
No mention of this being on contaminated land!
By L Evans
When will this ever stop? beyond the headlines of 206 new homes and more income for the council for over 30 years this land has been proven to be contaminated beyond residential use. Leave it alone.
By Lee evans
This land is the old landfill site and full of nasty hazardous substances, that would be detrimental to the environment and health of those living adjacent to the land. Who, in their right mind would want to live on top of mercury, asbestos and other deadly substances ??
By Judy Waddington
Why put more pressure on our services.
Roads-Shools- Doctors and give our children a chance to grow up in a nice area.
No thank you to the disturbance of the landfill site.
400 more cars in an already congested area.
By Gina Turnbull
The roads are already congested. Getting an appointment at the doctors takes weeks already. Our local school is over subscribed . The land is heavily contaminated, so as usual profits before people. These previous comments, by a disgruntled resident sum up exactly the feelings of the resisidents of the Midland Road area, so I am happy to second them!
By Sue Burns
Building hundreds of homes on heavily contaminated land (as shown by the various surveys already completed) in an area with inadequate infrastructure is madness. As earlier comments have noted traffic in this area is extremely busy at peak times and the nearest school is already struggling to cope with the number of pupils in the area. What person would want to buy a home where they could never extend, or grow vegetables in their garden due to the contaminated land beneath? Stockport council need to listen to the local residents and reject this proposal.
By Claire
Who would want to live on contaminated land ? It already takes forever to get through the lights on Midland Road ! Doctors always too busy to get an appointment. When will persimmon ever give up !
By M Clegg
“Create a healthy community” really?
Living on toxic land that so far has not been built on because there has been no way to make the site safe for those who will live there and for surrounding residents during the building process?
By Amanda
No mention that no extensions or conservatories will be allowed as they are not planning on making all of the ground safe, just the bit they want to actually build on. Also, only specific plants allowed to be planted in the gardens due to the toxic waste, so no home grown veg or fruit trees. And the fact not one consultant or employee for persimmon homes would live there when asked.
By Lloyd
I think lloyd has said pretty much what I was going to say but what I will add is that a representative from RSK (company who have been involved in the testing of the land) stated that he couldn’t understand why Persimmon bought the land in the first place and also when asked if he would live there “not a chance” was the answer. The junction at the top of midland road is ridiculous already, with an extra 300 cars god knows what it will be like. Just to reiterate, no additional building work will be permitted on the houses, no deep rooted trees and shrubs and also growing of food for consumption prohibited. Prospective buyers need to be made aware of these issues before they even consider purchasing one (if permission granted) these issues need to be made public and shouted from the rooftops.
By Ged Turnbull
Seems to be a lot of arm chair Environmental Health Officers on the forum, maybe we should wait for the Land Contamination Report and suggested mitigation measures before judging it unfit for development… better yet everyone in the Country seems to be moaning about the refuse collections, maybe Viridor would be interested in extending their recycling plant and expand capacity for the locals.
By Aevis
I think its a great idea, making safe contaminated land, building much needed homes, this is what developers should be doing. Unhappy NIMBY’s are just the same people who then go on to complain how their kids cant afford a house because house prices are too high etc.
good going, persimmon, get it done and get em built!
By UDK
Persimmon Homes need to seriously fix problems with previous developments before trying to build new ones!
By Anna
The last comment by someone who just gave their initials just wondering do they live in the area affected by this proposal? I am not a nimby but this land is heavily contaminated fact. Anyone who buys a property will not be able to plant vegetables or fruit trees. No not good old Persimmon, you have threatened me and my neighbours with the sword of Damocles since 1979 when I moved here!
By Heather
Brownfield first!!!
Unless its near my house. . .
Get a grip NiMbYs.
By Realist
I wish they would build on the Greenbelt instead…
By NIMBY
I was witness to the persimmon consultation event they held, they couldn’t answer quite simple questions nor did they want to. I got told from one rep that the methane is ‘just like our farts’ I’m using his terms not mine!!! I also asked if they knew what risks it could have on a pregnant women’s Fetus – to be told they were ‘usure’. When I asked the the young lady rep if she would buy one of those houses and start her family there she replied ‘well obviously not!’ Now I maybe wrong but these are supposed to be educated people in a professional field and they couldn’t even be honest and speak any sense! I’m appalled that they think any planning would get passed – all the reasons in the comments speak volumes – it’s dangerous, unsafe, and the areas services couldn’t even facilitate any more residents. Especially medically sick ones which will increase if the build was to go ahead!
By M Rossiter-Wilkinson
Remediation is remediation, if the land is remediation the contamination issue has been satisfied.
Perhaps these young educated reps simply dont want to live in that area, I wouldn’t either.
Personally if the site is so contaminated that its hazardous I would want it remediating to a livable standard to prevent this contamination spreading.
By UDK
What a ridiculously unbalanced article. This application is totally unsuitable. The access to the site is through a busy residential area, which will be a nightmare when the new house are there let alone during the construction. And the site is contaminated to the point that the residents won’t be able to plant anything in their gardens. Is the extra income to the council really worth risking the health of the families that live in the area when this former dump is disturbed?
By Paul Hughes
The site isn’t contaminated beyond remediation – it has always previously been considered too expensive to remediate but presumably Persimmon have now done the sums and it adds up. Also isn’t a former landfill site – the issue has always been landfill gas leaching from the adjacent former landfill site.
Paul Hughes, if you want balanced journalism then Place North West, a news resource for property and development professionals, is probably not the place to be looking. The article is almost certainly little more than a rehashing (if not word for word repeating) of a press release that will have been put out by Persimmon.
Finally, all those who clearly know – perhaps I should say ‘care’ – a lot about the potential for development in this location, I suggest you look at the planning application documents on the council’s website (they weren’t yet there when I looked yesterday) rather than basing your opinion on prior knowledge, rumour and the very limited detail given in this article.
By the way
There seems to be alot of pre-judgement and speculation here, given that when I last looked no details of the Planning Application were available on the Planning Portal, so we don’t know the detail of what is proposed.
This is obviously a Persimmon press release and they are selling the positives, they want to build houses – that’s what they do. Other commentators here, are clearly are opposed to any development and are accentuating the negative. Both are entitled to express their views, the truth one suspects will be somewhere in the middle.
Unfortunately, we have a national shortage of housing and it has to go somewhere, government planning policy promotes brownfield sites, like this, in preference to greenbelt land, a policy supported by our MP, Mary Robinson. Greenbelt land is already under pressure around Stockport and 3,500 people (including myself) signed a petition against further greenbelt development and called upon the council to prioritise the development of brownfield land. Most brownfield sites have been contaminated, by their former uses, but numerous heavily contaminated sites such as Gasworks, Steelworks and Colliery’s have been successfully redeveloped. Issues like school places, doctors etc are common to any major development, wherever it is built.
Frankly I don’t envy the Council, they are between a rock and a hard place on this one, and I wouldn’t be local councillor for all the tea in China !
By R Molyneux
I’m not against development of houses, if the site wasn’t contaminated and considered hazardous in the past I would have no objection. Houses need to be built. To build on land which unsuitable and a risk just because it would have a more desirable postcode so boosting profits is not ok.
By Ashley
Contaminated land. – water supply- disturbance of air pollutants. Of course none if this will be taken into account when the mighty dollar is in the equation, eh Persimmon Homes!
By Angela Mckeever
If it was deemed dangerous because of landfill what has changed? The traffic through that area is already very busy
By J.Hill