Retirement apartment block at Woodhead Hall, Cherry Lane, Cheadle

What was proposed

The application sought 24 retirement living apartments, communal and staff facilities, converted buildings, improved access, parking and landscaping.

“Planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of the service yard area within the site, currently laid to hardstanding (PDL), and to provide 24 Class C2 retirement living apartments. The proposal comprises the erection of a three-storey building accommodating 21 one-bedroom units, together with a central single-storey building providing staff facilities and three additional one-bedroom units.”

“The proposed development includes a three-storey building arranged around the perimeter of the site, with a single-storey central building providing staff facilities and three residential units. The existing coach house/former workshop building would be converted to provide communal facilities for residents, including shared lounge and activity spaces. A smaller ancillary building would be converted to provide refuse storage, general storage and cycle parking.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is previously developed land in open countryside beside the Grade II listed Woodhead Hall and near homes and a neurological centre.

“The site lies to the east of Woodhead Hall, a Grade II listed building set within a historic parkland environment. The developable area within the application site consists of a substantial area of hardstanding associated with the former depot use (previously developed land, PDL), the remainder of the site is grassed area through which an access track will be widened to create the main vehicular access onto Lockwood Road, and woodland that will not be impacted upon and…”

“For the purposes of planning policy assessment, the site is hardstanding (PDL) located within the open countryside in Cheadle North East Ward, to the north-east of Cheadle. The previously developed employment land falls within the Churnet Valley Masterplan area. While the site is not within a Conservation Area, it lies within the grounds and historic parkland setting of the Grade II listed Woodhead Hall, the impact upon which is a key material consideration.”

Officer report

Earlier use and permissions

The site formerly accommodated a contractors’ depot and workshops, was vacant from August 2021, and has a history of access and building permissions.

“Planning permission was most recently granted for the conversion of the former stable block and workshops to office, depot, and workshop uses associated with a contractors’ business. The site has been vacant since 31 August 2021, when Kier ceased occupation. Historically, access to the site was achieved via both Cherry Lane/Oakamoor Road and Lockwood Road.”

“The proposed main vehicular access to serve the retirement development is via the existing maintenance road from Lockwood Road, which was approved under planning permission SMD/2012/0713. This access was originally intended for occasional use to facilitate safer access to the private sewage treatment works serving Woodhead Hall, located opposite the junction with Lockwood Road.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would harm the listed hall’s setting, fail to provide suitable design and lie in an unsustainable location.

“The proposal does not comply with the Development Plan. The proposal would result in a high degree of harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed Woodhead Hall. The harm is ‘less than substantial’ but at the higher end of the scale and is not outweighed by public benefits. In addition the design quality of the development is not acceptable. It fails to reinforce local distinctiveness and does not respect the site or its surroundings.”

“The policies referred to in (i) are listed in footnote 7 of the Framework. In this case and notwithstanding that the Council can not demonstrate a 5 year housing supply, there is a high degree of harm to a heritage asset which provides a clear reason for refusing the application (footnote 7). As such the tilted balance in not engaged. The application stands to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways and several technical consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while the conservation officer objected because of heritage harm.

“Conservation Officer Object –The Conservation Officer has considered the proposal and accompanying heritage report and commented as follows:”

“In summary, the proposal would result in a high degree of harm to the setting of the Listed Building. This would fail to satisfy the provisions of s.66 of the Act. With reference to the planning policies, this would be ‘less than substantial harm’ to the designated heritage asset (par.215 of NPPF and policy DC2 of the local development framework), but at the higher end of the scale of harm.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The application was supported by a planning consultant, heritage consultant and architect, and opposed by a neighbour and ward councillor.

What members discussed

Members discussed the proposal’s design, height and isolated location.

“Members discussed the design, height and the isolated location of the proposal.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application for the reasons and policies in the report.

“That the application be REFUSED for the reasons and based on the policies contained within the report;”

“In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/in formatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s Decision.”

Minutes

Why it was refused

The proposal was refused because its scale and design harmed the listed hall’s setting and character, and its public benefits did not outweigh those impacts.

“The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, massing and siting, would result in a high degree of harm to the setting and significance of Woodhead Hall (Grade II listed). The harm is ‘less than substantial’ but at the higher end of the scale and is not outweighed by public benefits contrary to Policy DC2 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan and Section 16 of the NPPF.”

“The proposed development is unacceptable as it conflicts with the aims and requirements of the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan, specifically Policy DC1, and the design principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The U‑shaped block fails to demonstrate a design response that respects the site or its wider context. Its scale, height and layout do not promote a positive sense of place or reinforce local character and identity.”

Officer report