Information site produced by neighbours of the Lymm hotel
The captions to the above plans are those attached by the developers
Parking
Parking for the retirement apartments is covered on that page .
​
The inadequate parking for the combined care home/ nursery and increased highway activity was seen as the single biggest issue by residents last time round and was one of the reasons for refusal.
​
There are two key documents from the developer that cover their views on parking, highway safety travel to work, public transport etc
​
​
The developer's approach has been to argue that while the parking fell short of the provision needed based on standard requirements in practice it would suffice as the use would vary through the day and would always be sufficient at any given point. The developers own assessment follows :-
There are 45 spaces in total. The developers' own assessment appears to show a need for 80 spaces (34 for Care Home + 46 for Nursery) but they go on to make the case that the whole requirement would never be needed at the same time and so 45 spaces would suffice.
Bear in mind that the 45 includes 4 disabled only spaces and 2 spaces potentially reserved as electric charging points.
The developer has indicated how a 12 metre delivery lorry could safely navigate the car park However there is still no dedicated delivery parking area. Even a 10 metre truck would require the equivalent of three spaces.
There is still no dedicated safe drop-off / collect zone for the nursery.
The real concern is that the car park will fill to capacity with staff and other visiting carers (for whom there should also be reserved places) . The result would then be that nursery drop-off would actually take place on the highway and also involve the use of the Trans-Pennine trail car park opposite the development.
All drop offs would then need to make a 180 turn on that part of Statham Avenue, which is a cul de sac, in order to leave. This would cause unreasonable disruption and highway safety issues.
​
​
Public Transport
​
Here is what the officer had to say in his refusal report
​
​
The facts of public transport accessibility have not changed.
The developers has acknowledged and corrected inaccuracies in the previous application but now make their case by arguing that
1. The area should in fact be assessed based on rural and village guidelines which accept bus stops being further than in a developed area.
2. the location is well served by facilities in easy walking distance (e.g. McColls on Albany Road) Brookfield Surgery*, The Library.
* The surgery was one of the objectors last time round expressing concern that they did not have the capacity to deal with such a large influx of people with above average needs.
No mention is made of the hilly nature of the area approaching the village or the difficult unmade road at the end of Statham Avenue.
​
An important aspect of the inadequate access to public transport is the need to acknowledge that this will result in higher than average car use - by residents of the retirement apartments, by staff on all sites, by visitors, visiting carers, nursery parents etc ... The officer has also made that point. It underlines the importance of having adequate parking.
​
​
​