New housing development at Rose Hill station?

[jimblob]

My point is that if people chose to buy a house or live near a pub/school/tip/train station etc then there will be associated noises.

@royal_marple I always knew I was buying a house near to a recycling centre and my due-dilligence at the time, assured me that the planning consent and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was such that noise and traffic issues were under control. The EIA identified noise as a key operational issue and as a result, significant noise mitigation measures were incororated into the design of the site.  The situation now however is that those mitigations that formed the basis of the planning approval are proving inadequate given higher numbers of visitors than were projected for a 10 year period, which in turn means more waste, more container pickups and more waste compaction. That waste compaction and container activity is generating higher noise levels than were estimated in the Environmental Assessment and that were the basis for the planning approval. The conditions of the planning approval are arguably being breached! Because of this, Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) have instructed Wood to conduct a noise investigation and it's findings have comfirmed that which is stated above in terms of "severe adverse impacts" to the surrounding area. GMCA have aknowledged the problem and commited to do something about it.
I felt this needed stating before somebody else decides I'm merely on some kind of Victor Meldrew styled rant with my own personal agenda.

[royal_marple]

We are all entitled of course to an opinion. The opinion of Stockport’s planners and Viridor in 2007/08 seemingly that they clearly felt this IS a “predominantly residential area” by the inclusion of section 11 CDH1.2 of Stockport’s Unitary Development Plan into the planning application (ref DC-028177) and the associated environmental impact assessment (EIA) that was conducted at the time.
Ref…
CDH1.2 NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Non-residential development will be permitted in Predominantly Residential Areas where it can be  accommodated without detriment to the residential amenity of adjacent dwellings or the residential area as a whole. In particular account will be taken of:
(i)   noise, smell and nuisance
(ii)   traffic generation and safety and accessibility by sustainable transport modes
(iii)   parking
(iv)   hours of operation
(v)   proximity to dwellings
(vi)   the scale of the proposal
(vii)   whether or not the character of the area will be changed. Most large-scale, non-residential development will be inappropriate in Predominantly Residential Areas.

In attemtping to mitigate against the above as identified in the EIA, they built 6m sound barriers around the three sides of the site!
Surprising they’d go to all these lengths if they considered it an industrial estate, …  In my opinion!

Not sure what my apparently different "opinion" is supposed to be. I have stated that the tip is situated in what is effectively an industrial estate, in a residential area. (See my quote below.) This is entirely factual. My point is that if people chose to buy a house or live near a pub/school/tip/train station etc then there will be associated noises.

I currently live opposite a primary school (which is next to ANOTHER primary school) and the traffic and noise for 2 hours a day is horrendous. Not to mention the parking. I have just bought a house in central Marple, ten seconds from Stockport Road, and so have likewise knowingly chosen to live with the effects of traffic noise and pollution from that immediate area. Possibly even music/noise from 2 pubs both just 30 seconds away, although I'm pleased about this!

Sorry but I completely disagree, it is situated in what is effectively a small industrial estate, next to two building yards and a coal merchants, the first two at least generate a lot of industrial noise and traffic. The traffic problems are similar to any of the local schools or college, all of which are in residential areas too.

[jimblob]

As usual the bit that doesn't fit your purpose.

Please elaborate @wheels
This is a democratic forum where all opinions can be voiced.

[wheels]

which piece of the picture am I missing @wheels

As usual the bit that doesn't fit your purpose.

[jimblob]

No it's not you are seeking to influence people's views without giving them the full picture and declaring your personal interest in the issue. That's not at all my understanding ding of how democratic debate takes place.

which piece of the picture am I missing @wheels

[wheels]

Not a double standard @wheels , it's called democracy!

No it's not you are seeking to influence people's views without giving them the full picture and declaring your personal interest in the issue. That's not at all my understanding of how democratic debate takes place.

[jimblob]

In local government elected members and officers who you complain so much about  would be require to declare an interest if they had one in the prospect of any building near to them. Here people can moan away seeking to influence others views without any such declaration of personal interest.  A strange double stand some adopt.

Not a double standard @wheels , it's called democracy!

[wheels]

In local government elected members and officers who you complain so much about  would be require to declare an interest if they had one in the prospect of any building near to them. Here people can moan away seeking to influence others views without any such declaration of personal interest.  A strange double stand some adopt.

[jimblob]

Sorry but I completely disagree, it is situated in what is effectively a small industrial estate, next to two building yards and a coal merchants, the first two at least generate a lot of industrial noise and traffic. The traffic problems are similar to any of the local schools or college, all of which are in residential areas too.

We are all entitled of course to an opinion. The opinion of Stockport’s planners and Viridor in 2007/08 seemingly that they clearly felt this IS a “predominantly residential area” by the inclusion of section 11 CDH1.2 of Stockport’s Unitary Development Plan into the planning application (ref DC-028177) and the associated environmental impact assessment (EIA) that was conducted at the time.
Ref…
CDH1.2 NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Non-residential development will be permitted in Predominantly Residential Areas where it can be  accommodated without detriment to the residential amenity of adjacent dwellings or the residential area as a whole. In particular account will be taken of:
(i)   noise, smell and nuisance
(ii)   traffic generation and safety and accessibility by sustainable transport modes
(iii)   parking
(iv)   hours of operation
(v)   proximity to dwellings
(vi)   the scale of the proposal
(vii)   whether or not the character of the area will be changed. Most large-scale, non-residential development will be inappropriate in Predominantly Residential Areas.

In attemtping to mitigate against the above as identified in the EIA, they built 6m sound barriers around the three sides of the site!
Surprising they’d go to all these lengths if they considered it an industrial estate, …  In my opinion!

[royal_marple]

Personally, I think the location and activity levels at the recycling centre are incongruous to the locale. It generates a lot of noise and traffic in a largely residential area. A recent BS 4142:2014 environmental noise investigation last year concluded that 25% of the time, there is are "significant adverse impacts" from noise generated at the site at weekends, measured over 100m away from the site. It's opening times until 8pm through summer, 7 days a week are invasive when you're having relaxing time in the garden at 7pm on a Sunday evening and listening to a 27 tonne JCB crushing waste in an open container. Railway Road is also too narrow to accomodate the contaienr vehicles and there have been recorded instances of near misses where these vehicles are concerned.

Sorry but I completely disagree, it is situated in what is effectively a small industrial estate, next to two building yards and a coal merchants, the first two at least generate a lot of industrial noise and traffic. The traffic problems are similar to any of the local schools or college, all of which are in residential areas too.

[jimblob]

Hi admin team

Thanks for this message. There was no discussion about allotments and/or the recycling centre which was the same for any individual areas at other locations. From a personal point of view I would not want to see either of these well used facilities being brought into question and would be against any changes that could affect us in a negative way.

Kind regards

Steve

Personally, I think the location and activity levels at the recycling centre are incongruous to the locale. It generates a lot of noise and traffic in a largely residential area. A recent BS 4142:2014 environmental noise investigation last year concluded that 25% of the time, there is are "significant adverse impacts" from noise generated at the site at weekends, measured over 100m away from the site. It's opening times until 8pm through summer, 7 days a week are invasive when you're having relaxing time in the garden at 7pm on a Sunday evening and listening to a 27 tonne JCB crushing waste in an open container. Railway Road is also too narrow to accomodate the contaienr vehicles and there have been recorded instances of near misses where these vehicles are concerned.

[Steve Gribbon]

Thank you for the update @Steve Gribbon and we look forward to more in the near future.

Is it possible to say at the moment if the allotments are definitely safe and that they are not contemplating closing the recycle centre and building on it?

Hi admin team

Thanks for this message. There was no discussion about allotments and/or the recycling centre which was the same for any individual areas at other locations. From a personal point of view I would not want to see either of these well used facilities being brought into question and would be against any changes that could affect us in a negative way.

Kind regards

Steve

[admin]

Good afternoon

This week Malcolm Allan and I have attended scrutiny meetings where the Rail Alliance was discussed. Questions were raised about how the 4 stations had been chosen and why 2 (Cheadle Hulme and Hazel Grove) have been put forward for further work. We also questioned and expressed disappointment as to why this information had got into the public domain before being presented to scrutiny panels which has been accepted. Last night I asked about whether any landowners had been contacted with a view to selling land due to some land acquisition may be required to progress stations, Council officers did not know the answer to this and are finding out this information.

During the scrutiny meetings it was made clear that all stations are subject to scrutiny and all could indeed be investigated further in due course, this also works the same way that no stations could be subject to any work, the scheme is very much in its infancy.

Malcolm and I have also requested that the lead officer with the scheme meet with us privately to discuss matters further and this has been accepted and we will involve our fellow Councillor Becky Senior in any future discussions. We will of course keep residents updated accordingly.

Kind regards, Steve Gribbon
On behalf of myself, Becky Senior and Malcolm Allan.

Thank you for the update @Steve Gribbon and we look forward to more in the near future.

Is it possible to say at the moment if the allotments are definitely safe and that they are not contemplating closing the recycle centre and building on it?

[Steve Gribbon]

Good afternoon

This week Malcolm Allan and I have attended scrutiny meetings where the Rail Alliance was discussed. Questions were raised about how the 4 stations had been chosen and why 2 (Cheadle Hulme and Hazel Grove) have been put forward for further work. We also questioned and expressed disappointment as to why this information had got into the public domain before being presented to scrutiny panels which has been accepted. Last night I asked about whether any landowners had been contacted with a view to selling land due to some land acquisition may be required to progress stations, Council officers did not know the answer to this and are finding out this information.

During the scrutiny meetings it was made clear that all stations are subject to scrutiny and all could indeed be investigated further in due course, this also works the same way that no stations could be subject to any work, the scheme is very much in its infancy.

Malcolm and I have also requested that the lead officer with the scheme meet with us privately to discuss matters further and this has been accepted and we will involve our fellow Councillor Becky Senior in any future discussions. We will of course keep residents updated accordingly.

Kind regards, Steve Gribbon
On behalf of myself, Becky Senior and Malcolm Allan.

[royal_marple]

Very interesting to read this.

As long as the train station is still there, and Middlewood Way and fields aren't affected, I don't see any problems with new housing. But surely the industrial estate opposite Peacefield or half of the site of the Dale school would be simpler to build on?