Storm over housing plan for former Cotebrook care home

4

PLANS to demolish the historic Cotebrook House care home at Lymm and replace it with six, six-bedroomed houses are to come before Warrington’s planning chiefs next week.

Nearby residents have lodged a string of objections – but Lymm Parish Council is not opposing the scheme and officers are recommending it be approved.

The former care home has been standing empty for about two years and last year plans to demolish it and build 12 houses on the site were submitted but then withdrawn.

Formerly the home of the Dewhurst family, the house, which stands in wooded grounds, became a nursing home in 1946.

It closed in October 2015 when its use as a care home became unviable. Residents were found other accommodation. The trustees, who attempted to sell the building as a care home without success, have pledged the make the proceeds of selling the site to local charities.

A report to go to a meeting of the borough’s development management committee on Wednesday says the house – a locally listed building – was turned down for statutory listing last year because of its deteriorating condition and the fact that little remained of the original building.

Objectors say the house is locally listed and should not be demolished and demolition is contrary to the local plan strategy. They argue that it should be converted rather than demolished.

They say the new houses will tower over existing properties and will be out of keeping with the area. There will be a loss of light and of privacy.

In addition, it is opposite Lymm High School and the safety of pupils should be taken into account.

However, two neighbours have written letters supporting the scheme, by local builders Lane End Developments.


4 Comments
Share.

About Author

4 Comments

  1. Who are the trustees and why did they let it deteriorate so much?
    As expected WBC planning officers recommend the scheme but why are the parish council supporting it?

    • Where does Culture Warrington stand in this all too typical situation? Why aren’t they very much to the fore arguing for the preservation of one of the dwindling few heritage buildings successive administrations have left us with? How are we to interpret their defending silence?

Leave A Comment