Another canal side property for sale

[Hudds Lad]

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

Assuming you get planning permission, obviously... 😉

https://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=22/3015M&query=ea9051d6b28e43978b4dc4e960928c52&start=&from=m

[ditchcrawler]

3 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

https://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=22/3015M&query=ea9051d6b28e43978b4dc4e960928c52&start=&from=m

I note CRT were not consulted that I can see

[Mike Tee]

I only glanced at the documents (which were written in legal gobldy gook) but it seems the plans were approved but then subsequently, on the same day, revoked then approved again. So I’m still not sure what the result was. Good job I’m not interested in buying it!

[doratheexplorer]

7 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I note CRT were not consulted that I can see

Because that's not a planning application.  It's an application for a certificate of lawfulness.  Basically, the development is looking for something in writing from the Council to prove that no planning permission is required.

[David Mack]

Residential use refused on appeal in 2008/9 and again in 2010. Use of the wharf as domestic curtilage (I.e. garden - presumably for the adjacent residential mooring) refused in 2011.

Lawful development certificate acknowledges use as a builders yard (only) subject to conditions.

[doratheexplorer]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

Residential use refused on appeal in 2008/9 and again in 2010. Use of the wharf as domestic curtilage (I.e. garden - presumably for the adjacent residential mooring) refused in 2011.

Lawful development certificate acknowledges use as a builders yard (only) subject to conditions.

Exactly.  Twice refused for resi, but the estate agent's blurb says: 

 

"This plot currently has the benefit of a certificate of lawfulness for the construction of a warehouse/storage unit which later could be transferred under permitted development for residential."

 

This is misleading.  There is no guarantee of transfer to resi, the change would need a prior approval application.

[jonathanA]

yes but the mooring seems to have residential planning permission...

 

300k seems a snip compared to that one at 1.2M in that there london. i know which i'd sooner have. 

[doratheexplorer]

5 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

yes but the mooring seems to have residential planning permission...

 

300k seems a snip compared to that one at 1.2M in that there london. i know which i'd sooner have. 

The residential status of the mooring was established in an earlier application (2006) for a certificate of lawfulness:  https://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=07/0005P&query=93ae35cd-38bc-408b-a01b-d662c9b531fe

 

This application is quite interesting.  The applicant was asserting that, because a residential boat had been moored there for over ten years, it made the whole site residential.  The Council disagreed and only gave residential status to the mooring itself, not the adjoining land.  That's why they started submitting applications for new dwellings, which were then refused.  Then the owners have tried to find a loophole by using the permitted development regs to put up warehouse/storage buildings with a view to converting them to resi later.  I suspect they've been advised that the conversion to resi will be refused, so they've decided to sell to an unsuspecting mug who thinks they can build a house there.

 

Bear in mind that even if conversion to resi is accepted, that's only an approved for a change of use of the existing warehouse building, which, if you look at the plans is a horrible ugly thing and not at all desirable as a house.  If they try to build something new to live in, it will need full planning permission, which would almost certainly be refused.

 

It's in a conservation area and in the green belt.

[Tracy D'arth]

This plot has been on and off sale for many years. It was once a builders yard and all sorts of rubbish was dumped on there. The canal in the mooring was and possibly still is full of slates and bricks.

Many have tried to get consent for redevelopment. It is a very open site, would not be pleasant when the wind blows and the snow comes.

[jonathanA]

yes but if your happy living on your boat having an 'industrial' building to store stuff and no doubt it would be perfectly reasonable to have decent welfare facilities in the warehouse/industrial unit....   could be quite attractive,  some potential for income if you had a unit or units you could let out, perhaps to a canal related business.  Although i suspect the £300K price for less than half an acre would seem to represent a residential development plot price and seems 'optimistic' 

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

yes but if your happy living on your boat having an 'industrial' building to store stuff and no doubt it would be perfectly reasonable to have decent welfare facilities in the warehouse/industrial unit....   could be quite attractive,  some potential for income if you had a unit or units you could let out, perhaps to a canal related business.  Although i suspect the £300K price for less than half an acre would seem to represent a residential development plot price and seems 'optimistic' 

I think it's £300k because they're hoping that their waffle about conversion to residential -- unlikely to happen, and even less so for building a house there -- will con somebody into buying it in assuming they can do this. From the posts above, they're going to be disappointed. The estate agent blurb is close to being fraudulent by implying this... 😞

[MtB]

It does seem perverse of the Planning Committee though, refusing change of use to resi. Given the row of houses just along the lane and the general nature of the location. 

 

I wonder if there are some old scores being settled here. Or something. 

Or failure of the brown envelopes to materialise that are sometimes needed, apparently.

 

 

 

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

It does seem perverse of the Planning Committee though, refusing change of use to resi. Given the row of houses just along the lane and the general nature of the location. 

 

I wonder if there are some old scores being settled here. Or something. 

Or failure of the brown envelopes to materialise that are sometimes needed, apparently.

 

 

 

It all depends on what is in the Councils plan at the time. It could be a push for affordable, commercial or domestic housing. 

 

[David Mack]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

It does seem perverse of the Planning Committee though, refusing change of use to resi. Given the row of houses just along the lane and the general nature of the location. 

 

I wonder if there are some old scores being settled here. Or something. 

This won't have got near the Planning Comittee. It will have been an officer delegated decision. But both the 2008 and 2010 resi applications were appealed and lost both times. Appeals are heard by a planning inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, who I would have thought would be much less influenced by any 'old score' issues. The appeals would have been lost because the local planning authority could set out a good case to show that residential development was inconsistent with planning policy.

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, David Mack said:

This won't have got near the Planning Comittee. It will have been an officer delegated decision. But both the 2008 and 2010 resi applications were appealed and lost both times. Appeals are heard by a planning inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, who I would have thought would be much less influenced by any 'old score' issues. The appeals would have been lost because the local planning authority could set out a good case to show that residential development was inconsistent with planning policy.

 

More curious than ever then. One wonders what on earth the planning policy says, that makes such an apparently suitable site for residential use, unsuitable!

[Tonka]

19 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

More curious than ever then. One wonders what on earth the planning policy says, that makes such an apparently suitable site for residential use, unsuitable!

You do not understand at all.

I have the original grade 2 cottage next to the house we live in. It has a wall and a roof. I am trying to convert it into living accommodation for us as there is 6 of us living in a 3 bedroom house. The council say no. I can have it as a holiday let or I have to put it on the market for 6 months as a commercial unit. If I have no takers then the council may allow me to convert it to residential. All because of the councils local plan at the moment

[Tracy D'arth]

If you visit you will find that it is not a great place to build a house. It is backed by open wind blown fields and stands higher than the canal. It is green belt too and Macclesfield are protective of the belt. They have had considerable domestic development already in the borough and may be close to exceeding the permitted quota.

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

It does seem perverse of the Planning Committee though, refusing change of use to resi. Given the row of houses just along the lane and the general nature of the location. 

 

I wonder if there are some old scores being settled here. Or something. 

Or failure of the brown envelopes to materialise that are sometimes needed, apparently.

 

 

 

Except that both applications were appealed and both times the inspector agreed with the refusal.

43 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

More curious than ever then. One wonders what on earth the planning policy says, that makes such an apparently suitable site for residential use, unsuitable!

The inspector's reports are availble online to read.  For starters, it's green belt.

[jonathanA]

yes from what I saw its in greenbelt and a conservation area, so the LPA will be playing their 'local plan' /house building target card, possibly quite rightly to protect themselves from a deluge of speculative planning applications.  Near me Preston Council royally cocked up their plan to meet new house build targets and becuase they could not show they would meet house supply targets, then speculative development requests went berserk and they could not refuse the applications despite huge local opposition. Eventually under massive pressure from all the councillors who realized their Arses were on the line, they updated there local plan...  unfortunately not before some wholly unwelcome developments had got through... 

 

I would have thought any serious local developer will know what the current situation is and what chance of getting PP there is,  seems to me things might have moved on since the refusals from 15 years ago (or not !), you would need to see what local plans/policies exist and whether they cover this site. 

 

the best way would be to find some acceptable greenbelt development such as leisure, stables that sort of thing that would be deemed 'acceptable' or amount to, i think the phrase is, 'special circumstances' that over ride the greenbelt policy - not easy that one. 

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, jonathanA said:

the best way would be to find some acceptable greenbelt development such as leisure, stables that sort of thing that would be deemed 'acceptable' or amount to, i think the phrase is, 'special circumstances' that over ride the greenbelt policy - not easy that one. 

Or some sort of compromise use that recognises the existing permitted (industrial/warehouse) use, such as a couple of live-work units.

[John Brightley]

Broad Street Depot, Wolverhampton:

https://bidx1.com/en/en-gb/auction/property/94947

[ditchcrawler]

Now this is a lovely spot on the T&M and there is also the possibility of buying the historic boat that is moored there. The only place I have seen it is Facebook 

 

[magnetman]

On 01/02/2024 at 21:51, John Brightley said:

Broad Street Depot, Wolverhampton:

https://bidx1.com/en/en-gb/auction/property/94947

 

 

• Boaters Sanitation Station sold off on a new 99 year lease from completion

 

I wonder who would buy a boaters sanity station? What does this mean? 

 

It seems to be a liability not an asset to my rather simple mind. 

[Tonka]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

 

 

• Boaters Sanitation Station sold off on a new 99 year lease from completion

 

I wonder who would buy a boaters sanity station? What does this mean? 

 

It seems to be a liability not an asset to my rather simple mind. 

Someone with a compost toilet

[magnetman]

 

 

Is someone looking to monetise the "El Puerto d'Elsan' holiday resort ? Charge money for water? Pay as you go bins?