Proposed changes and new site allocations for local plan revealed

A report detailing the proposed changes to the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, including the new and amended strategic sites has been published.

The report requests that Council, Cabinet and the Strategic Planning Board approves these proposed changes to the Local Plan Strategy, alongside the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal for public consultation.

The recommended selection of sites in Wilmslow are:

The Spatial Distribution proposes that 900 homes be provided in Wilmslow along with 10 ha of Employment land (an increase from 400 homes and 8 ha in the submitted plan). As at 30 September 2015, there had been 87 net housing completions within the plan period and commitments totalled 312 units.

The one area of safeguarded land from previous Local Plans (land at Adlington Road) has now obtained consent and is under construction. Therefore to meet future needs additional allocations are proposed, all of which require amendment of the Green Belt boundary.

It is proposed to maintain the allocation at Royal London for mixed use but to include land west of Alderley Road within the developable area. This will now provide for around 175 homes (around 80 on land to the east of the existing campus, around 20 to the north of the existing campus and around 75 on land west of Alderley Road). The provision of 5 ha of employment land and a hotel. Plus the provision of at least 1 ha of land set aside for use as school playing fields within the site (in addition to the areas marked as open space on the map in the report).

Further housing allocations are now proposed at Little Staneylands and Heathfield Farm. The former will accommodate around 200 homes on land off Stanneylands Road, situated adjacent to the Dean Valley. Allocation of this site will require an adjustment to the Green Belt boundary

Heathfield Farm at Dean Row Road is located on the eastern edge of the town and could accommodate around 150 homes. It will be accessed by the existingroundabout. The remainder of this land; extending to some 9 ha towards Cross Lane will be safeguarded for future development after the end of the plan period. Allocation of this site will require an adjustment to the Green Belt boundary.

A further area of safeguarded Land is proposed between Upcast Lane and Cumber Lane. This extends to approximately 15 ha.

Finally, it is proposed once again to allocate land west of the A34 close to Wilmslow High School for employment use. Wilmslow Business Park will provide up to 6.3 ha of employment land. Allocation of this site will require an adjustment to the Green Belt boundary.

The recommended selection of sites in Handforth are:

The Spatial Distribution proposes that 2,200 homes be provided in Handforth along with 22 ha of Employment land. As at 30 September 2015, there had been 63 net housing completions within the plan period and commitments totalled 322 units. Employment land Commitments total nearly 10Ha.

At the North Cheshire Growth Village, the site is located off the A34 Bypass and bordered to the north by the A555 (Manchester Airport Eastern Link Road), it is proposed to maintain the allocation of some 1650 homes, plus up to 12 ha of employment land. Allocation of this site will require an adjustment to the Green Belt boundary.

In addition, a further new site is proposed west of the town. Land between Clay Lane and Sagars Road is recommended for around 250 homes. Allocation of this site will require an adjustment to the Green Belt boundary.

14ha of land south of the Growth Village is also proposed for safeguarding – for development after 2030.

Once approved, it is recommended that the 'Cheshire East Council Proposed Changes to the Local Plan Strategy' be subject to full public consultation for a period of six weeks. This is provisionally set between 4th March and 19th April 2016, depending on the decision made on 26th February 2016.

All responses received will then be logged and assessed following the close of consultation. Once analysed, consideration will be given as to the need for further proposed changes to be made to the Local Plan Strategy as a consequence of the representations made. After this assessment is complete, all consultation responses, together with the Proposed Changes will be submitted to the Local Plan Inspector, Mr Stephen Pratt. It is then anticipated that the Examination Hearings will resume in September 2016.

The full report, which extends to over 700 pages, can be dowloaded from the Cheshire East Council website. The section covering Handforth starts on page 400 and the section on Wilmslow begins on page 496.

Cheshire East Council is seeking approval of the proposed changes at a meeting of Strategic Planning Board on 18th February, a meeting of Cabinet on 23rd February and the Full Council on 26 February.

Wilmslow Maps: Royal London Site, Wilmslow Business Park Site, Land at Little Stanneylands and Heathfield Farm.

Handforth Maps: North Cheshire Growth Village Site, Land Between Clay Lane and Sagars Road.

Tags:
Local Plan
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.

Pete Taylor
Friday 12th February 2016 at 3:47 pm
Any comment from our WTC representaives? Or from our representatives on CEC who voted with their Party against the electors' wishes, which were overwhelmingly expressed in the Wilmslow Vision, to allow this land to be taken out of Green Belt protection on 28th February 2014:

The following amendment was proposed and seconded :-
Cllr M Murphy proposed an amendment, which was seconded by Cllr Brickhill as follows:-

“That the following strategic sites be deleted from the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy:-

CS26 – Royal London, Wilmslow
CS27 – Wilmslow Business Park
CS30 – Handforth East Growth Village
CS34 – (Safeguarded) Handforth East Growth Village
CS35 - (Safeguarded) Prestbury Road, Wilmslow
CS36 - (Safeguarded) Upcast Lane, Wilmslow
CS7 – Shavington East”

A requisition for a named vote on the amendment was submitted and duly supported in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.2, with the following result:-

For
Councillors D Brickhill, B Burkhill, P Edwards, D Mahon, B Murphy, M Parsons, L Roberts.

Against
Councillors C Andrew, Rachel Bailey, Rhoda Bailey, A Barratt, G Barton, G Baxendale, D Bebbington, D Brown, L Brown, S Carter, J Clowes, H Davenport, R Domleo, D Druce, K Edwards, I Faseyi, J P Findlow, S Gardiner, L Gilbert, P Groves, J Hammond, M Hardy, A Harewood, O Hunter, J Jackson, F Keegan, A Kolker,J Macrae, A Martin, M Martin, P Mason, R Menlove, G Merry, B Moran, P Raynes, M Simon,L Smetham, C Thorley, A Thwaite, D Topping, G Wait, G M Walton, M J Weatherill, P Whiteley, J Wray.

Not Voting:
S Corcoran, W Fitzgerald, R Fletcher, D Flude, S Hogben, D Hough,S Jones,
D Neilson.
DELETED ACCOUNT
Friday 12th February 2016 at 4:34 pm
Also the Adlington Road site has been removed. Guidance is very clear, "planning permission for the permitted development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan Review which proposes the development". There has been no local plan review of this site because it has never gone to the Inspector, ( he only considered the general sections of the plan). This document means that it will never go to the Inspector at all so has been disposed off without any consideration on his part. So much for local democracy and procedures.
Mark Goldsmith
Friday 12th February 2016 at 4:35 pm
What is the point of Green Belt if it can be "adjusted" to suit councilors needs?

Frankly this whole episode is one Machiavellian scheme to do what they want by drowning everyone in detail.

Once we actually understand the outcome it will be too late.
Suzanne Walford
Friday 12th February 2016 at 7:31 pm
Completely agree with Mark Goldsmith - what does the green belt actually mean or stand for if it can be redrawn at any point?
David Jefferay
Friday 12th February 2016 at 8:20 pm
The planning system does allow for green belt boundaries to be revised as part of the local plan process (every 20 years or so), which may not be a bad thing for towns that want or need to accommodate growth. Unfortunately, Wilmslow is being forced to accommodate an arbitrary figure of 900 houses to help the borough (Cheshire east) achieve its growth aspirations (even though Wilmslow doesn't need/want 900 more houses).

Pete, The WTC Strategic Planning Panel met yesterday evening to discuss the proposed sites but unfortunately I have been on holiday and only returned today so haven't had chance to catch up with any of the attendees to be briefed on the discussions.

Speaking for myself, my position is well documented and hasn't changed. My default position is opposition to development of the greenbelt and I am certainly against it when the need for the development has not been robustly demonstrated and/or the availability of alternative brownfield/ non-greenbelt sites has not been adequately investigated.

That said, we as Town Councillors do not approve the plan (that falls with the Cheshire East Councillors) and we therefore have little influence. I would suggest that people need to make their CEC councillors aware of any legitimate concerns ahead of the full council meeting on the 26th (at which I understand they are being asked to approve it). After all, they will need to stand behind their decisions in 3 years' time at the next elections (probably about the same time as applications to concrete over some big chunks of Wilmslow's green space are being considered).
Pete Taylor
Saturday 13th February 2016 at 12:07 am
Somewhat unsurprisingly the first Cllr to respond is our only independent representative. Thanks for taking the time David.
As for the rest of them, the silent majority party: we cast our votes to be represented, not ruled. We do not have to accept unwanted (or un-needed) extra house-building just because pressure has been brought to bear by the likes of local developers and employers who have poured money into political party funds.
David Jefferay
Saturday 13th February 2016 at 9:53 am
Unfortunately Pete, the members of Wilmslow Town Council (except Cllr Barton who also sits on CEC) have no more influence at this stage than any other member of the public. This is, I believe, as frustrating for the other members of the council (regardless of political persuasion) as it is for me.

The next point at which WTC can take part is the consultation stage. At that point we will actively involved and will be submitting comments which I would hope will represent the broad views of Wilmslow's residents. At that point, people should make their Wtc councillors aware of their thoughts as I have urged them above to contact their CEC councillors for the current stage.
Keith Chapman
Saturday 13th February 2016 at 5:50 pm
Pete, as my colleague David Jeffery states Wilmslow Town Councillors have no powers to determine site allocations or alterations to green belt boundaries. We have not however been silent as you suggest. Our Chairman, Councillor Keith Purdom put out a statement very recently making it clear that the preference of councillors is the use of brownfield sites. No one wants to see the green belt eroded. We are actively developing a Neighbourhood plan under independent chairmanship with a steering group composed of volunteers. The Neighbourhood plan will not be able to overrule the Local plan, but it will be influential on Cheshire East with regard to the future development of Wilmslow. If you and the other commentators on this site wish to actively participate in the development of the town we are looking for volunteers to assist with the development of the Neighbourhood plan. If you would like to contact me we would be pleased to have you on board. KEITH CHAPMAN (Town Councilllor: Wilmslow East).
Stephen Brown
Saturday 13th February 2016 at 6:06 pm
All Change Crewe and High Growth City really means pile all the people into Handforth and Congleton to keep the council tax rolling in while limiting the numbers in central Cheshire East where most of the councillors reside. This might include destroying the whole purpose of the Green Belt in maintaining a gap between GM and CE, but allowing the central towns to qualify for Green Gaps. We at the periphery are just sites to be dumped on.

Purpose of the Green Belt:
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas (failed)
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another (failed)
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment (failed)
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns (failed)
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. (failed)

The Handforth East site is also full of wildlife and is better used by locals than some of the country parks Cheshire East maintain.

Wildlife assessment:
Ponds on site support a great crested newt population that was translocated there to allow the development of the A34 bypass and Handforth Dean development. Part of this site is therefore an ecological mitigation area. No development should take place that would compromise this part of the site.

The ponds also support an assemblage of dragonfly species which meets the criteria for selection as a Local Wildlife Site. They are Biodiversity Action Plan priority species of birds breeding here which are associated with the open grassland habitats.

And yet one of the biggest ponds is to be right in the middle of the 2000 houses.

Calling Handforth a Key Service Centre is also a joke. Handforth is not only tiny, much smaller than local service centres like Bollington or Haslington, but it doesn't even have a high school or leisure centre never mind leisure facilities such a theatre or cinema. It can hardly compare to even Holmes Chapel never mind towns like Knutsford.

From the local plan:
The Council recognises the important role of the Green Belt in the Borough, particularly in
preventing its towns and settlements from merging into one another. NOT TRUE. Keeping a few metres between settlements is not recognising the important role of the green belt. the towns of the south are to be treated better with their green gaps.

Strategic Green Gaps
8.63a Maintaining and enhancing the character and separate identities of the Borough’s towns and villages is a key priority of the Local Plan Strategy. NOT TRUE. They have happily merged Wilmslow and Handforth and are now set to merge Handforth with Bramhall and bring Handforth in close proximity to Woodword - which is also doubling in size. They are also planning to merge Poynton with Woodford by releasing green belt land between them so we will soon become one continuous stretch from GM outwards and across from Wilmslow to Poynton.

Justification
8.63b Within the areas to the south, east and west of Crewe, there are a number of neighbouring towns and villages in close proximity to each other. As Crewe has grown throughout the 20th Century, erosion of the gaps between Crewe, Nantwich and a number of smaller settlements has caused settlements to merge into the urban area in some cases, and very narrow gaps to remain in other cases.
8.63c The identification of Crewe as a spatial priority for growth brings significant opportunities for this area, but also some challenges. As Crewe grows to fulfil its potential it will become increasingly important to maintain the distinctive identity of Nantwich and other nearby settlements and to them from merging into a Greater Crewe urban area.

Poor Crewe and surrounding towns. Don't you feel sorry for them and the pressure they are under!

(page 92) PlanSite Allocations and Development Policies Document and / or neighbourhood plans. Table 8.2a shows settlements with a defined settlement boundary and any amendments to these settlement boundaries associated with the allocation of sites in this Local Plan Strategy. - Handforth is the only key service centre (or local service centre) not to have a listing on its own in the table.

It is also appropriate to direct a significant proportion of development to the remaining higherordercentres (the Key Service Centres), which provide a good range of services and opportunities for employment, retail and education alongside good public transport links - yeah, right! I suppose that is why tiny places like Handforth shoulder the biggest proportional burden followed by Congleton. NOT, you notice, the HIGH GROWTH CITY of Crewe. Typical drivel and lies by CE.

Outside of the Green Belt areas, substantial development in the Key Service Centres recognises the role of these towns in the provision of essential services. For Key Service Centres surrounded by Green Belt, the scale of development proposed is limited so that the fundamental objectives of the Green Belt are not compromised whilst meeting an appropriate proportion of locally-arising needs. - how they can DARE to keep this in I do not know!

8.85 The North Cheshire Growth Village at Handforth East will:
 Provide access to services and employment opportunities located in Manchester - so they want to limit commuting do they??? Why build up dormitory towns 10 miles away from Manchester when to the North, East and West of Manchester there are open spaces only a few miles out of town. This is the only area without a tram link too.

Use appropriate technologies to reduce carbon emissions and create a low carbon economy - oh yes, that makes sense to build lots of houses in Handforth East!

Crewe: High Growth City
11.4 As the largest town in South Cheshire, Crewe is already the area’s primary population centre and its major economic hub. Its 5000 businesses include concentrations of professional services, distribution, logistics and advanced engineering built on its rich rail and automotive heritage. It is located in not only one of the most prosperous parts of the region but the best connected, creating the perfect location for job creation, growth and development.- So, we WON'T build THE HIGHEST PROPORTIONAL INCREASE IN houses here, we will build them in HANDFORTH and then CONGLETON

I like the way Handforth and Poynton are part of the science corridor on their map!

Alderley Park - Currently AstraZeneca’s largest research facility and the company’s global
centre for cancer research. - IN REALITY - As announced in March 2014, AstraZeneca has sold Alderley Park to Manchester Science Parks (MSP). AstraZeneca will remain a key tenant at Alderley Park with around 700 staff in non-R&D roles.

The Council advocates a clear 'town centre first' approach for its Principal Towns and Key
Service Centres. It is fully supportive of the Government's aims to promote the vitality and viability of town and other centres as important places for communities. - I suppose that is why some of the sites released are miles away from the town centres

Cheshire East is committed to meeting the needs of its local communities and providing the
infrastructure, services and facilities required to create sustainable and stronger communities - evidence - the enormous growth in population in small villages like Handforth and Poynton has been met with shoddy services. Where is the new high school proposed for this population growth? We know the local schools are full. Where is the new leisure centre and swimming pool. If it is anything like Poynton who don't even have a town park a decent bus service around the town (elderley residents are left stranded in town unable to return home as scheduled buses don't run) and have a tiny swimming pool that is only open to public swims for a few hours a week, we can't rely on CE to provide for all these new housing estates.

We also want to put local people at the heart of decision making for their community and
provide them with the ability to identify and meet their own needs, embracing the spirit of localism. - who agrees with that statement?


12.7 Leisure opportunities bring together members of a community who work, live and play within an area.
12.8 Leisure and sports facilities and green spaces such as parks and allotments can help to enhance everyone’s life. Such provision is important for residents' social, mental and physical health and wellbeing and to the achievement of sustainable communities. - Do they REALLY believe this? Poynton for example has the smallest number of allotments of all service centres. I wonder how many Handforth East will get.

Areas of high biodiversity and geodiversity value will be protected and enhanced.
Enhancement measures will include increasing the total area of valuable habitat - In reality, they are planning to build over a thousand houses around the big pond at Handforth East

I suppose that is why they have also taken the SSSI sites out of the not permitted list:
2. Development proposals which are likely to have a significantmay have an adverse impact on a site with one or more of the following national or international designations will not bepermitted:
i. Special Protection Areas (SPAs) - still in
ii. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) - still in
iii. Ramsar Sites - still in
iv. Any potential Special Protection Areas (SPAs), candidate Special Areas of
Conservation (SACs) or proposed Ramsar sites - still in
v. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - crossed out
vi.v. Sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on
European sites, candidate Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of
Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites
vii. The Peak District National Park - crossed out
viii. National Nature Reserves - crossed out
Pete Taylor
Sunday 14th February 2016 at 9:04 pm
Keith Chapman,
Had you been at the initial meeting of the Neighbourhood Plan steering group, you might have noticed that I was there. After that meeting I engaged in conversations with several people at CEC; my conclusion was that they had closed minds and it would be a total waste of my time to continue participating.
Cheshire West Council, four years ago, positively encouraged Neighbourhood Plans, as they are the building blocks of the Local Plan (as outlined in the Localism legislation). Cheshire East have taken the opposite view and produced a (failed) Local Plan which they still say cannot be affected by whatever locals(!) might put into a Neighbourhood Plan. It would be hard to find a Council which has been worse-led than CEC, right from its instigation there has been failure on a massive scale. Even now, with a new "leader" they are not able to take the hints given to them by the Inspector and it would not be a surprise if the amended Local Plan fails again.
As for Keith Purdom's statement on brownfield first: it is notable that he had his epiphany long after the people of Wilmslow resoundingly rejected the Wilmslow Vision, long after the Independent Residents of Wilmslow group raised the brownfield issue but very shortly after the entire Tory Parish Council in Alderley were kicked out of office because they did not listen to the electorate; clearly Party politics has no place at this level.
Roger Bagguley
Sunday 14th February 2016 at 9:46 pm
As an ex schools inspector I am very use to applying the inspection process. Are the policies to be applied backed up by the evidence? Does data justify the outcomes? Is what I am being told true?

At the last stakeholders' meeting with Cheshire East we were assured the strategic site allocations would definitely be based upon the very latest housing figures to ensure no more land will be taken from the Green Belt than is required. Now crunch time has arrived we can work out for ourselves whether Cheshire East has applied the latest figures and whether their policies to protect the Green Belt, “Brownfield First,” stack up?

The Spatial Distribution increased the number of houses required in Wilmslow from 400 to 900, an increase of 500 units, or 125%. Based upon Residents of Wilmslow (RoW) figures, largely agreed by Cheshire East in October and November 2015, and last submitted to them on 2nd February 2016, evidence is at least one of the allocated sites is needlessly being removed from the Green Belt. Examine the figures:

Number of completions within the Plan period = 98
Number of commitments, including completions = 404

The Cheshire East proposal is to allocate 175 houses to Royal London, 200 to Little Stanneylands and 150 to Heathfield Farm. Thus:

Number of houses allocated in the revised Plan = 525
Total number to date = 929 (Already 29 in excess of need)

The above figures do indicate there is some agreement in housing figures between Cheshire East and RoW and that an update on the part of Cheshire East would bring them together. But the required 900 houses have been achieved on strategic sites only. RoW is reliably informed allocations of smaller, non-strategic sites will follow later in the process, sometime after councillors have voted on whether to adopt the Plan. Taking “Brownfield First” one assumes these sites are those on the edge of the urban area, sites offering brown curtilage within the Green Belt. The RoW assessment of these adds a further 70 potential units to the 929 above.

In assessing the Urban Potential within Wilmslow Cheshire East asserts only 14 houses can be built over the Plan period. But in assessing this potential there is no evidence they have spoken with owners of the brown sites as they have with owners in the Green Belt, now allocated. Had they done so then RoW estimates a further 80 units should be being counted into the 929 above.

Over recent years the “Windfall” rate for houses built in Wilmslow has averaged around 30 units per year, including during a recession. With 81 units awaiting approval in registered applications it appears this rate can be maintained. However, RoW accepts some of the potential windfall is in the brown site figures above and that as sites are developed the windfall rate can fall. Thus a conservative figure of 15 units per year over the next 14 years will add a further 210 to the 929 above.

Figures above indicate that by the end of the Plan period (2030)1289 houses could have been built in Wilmslow, 389 above the required 900. Thus, at least one of the allocated sites Royal London, Little Stanneylands or Heathfield Farm is not required and should remain in the Green Belt.

The proposed Plan takes land from the Green Belt for development beyond 2030 if required. This safeguarding of the rest of Heathfield Farm (9 hectares or 450 units) and land west of Upcast Lane (15 hectares or 750 units) targets 1200 houses (This is Adlington Road today x 6!). There is no mathematics on offer to justify this figure. It represents Cheshire East playing safe in an attempt to avoid a repeat of the painful process that is the Local Plan today. But playing safe is not an acceptable reason for taking land out of the Green Belt.

The Cheshire East proposal allocates 10 hectares of Green Belt land to providing new jobs in Wilmslow. Their site figures are confusing:

Already supplied prior to 31st March 2013 = 0.07 ha
Royal London will provide 5.00 ha (+ a hotel, area not specified)
Wilmslow Park will provide 6.30 ha
Total provision in these figures is 11.37 ha (1.37 hectares in excess of need)

But since April 2010 Waters on Altrincham Road (15 hectares) has been completed and work at Brybour Kennels (0.7 hectares) is nearing completion. These figures call for further investigation but for now it is looking like Cheshire East is going to have to justify removing more than twice the area of land from the Green Belt than is required. There is no justification for this.

RoW accepts Mr Pratt, Government Inspector, whilst implying more houses need to be provided in the north of the Borough, has not edicted there should be an increase of 125% in the number of units for Wilmslow. He has expressed concern that too much development land may well be being allocated when not required. The figures speak for themselves.
DELETED ACCOUNT
Monday 15th February 2016 at 11:29 am
What I find troubling about the whole process is the inconsistencies in approach. In the South of the borough they wish to maintain a "Green Gap" to ensure two towns don't join. Yet in the North they are actually treating Handforth and Wilmslow as one place, with several thousand houses to be built within a three mile radius of Wilmslow. The effect of this is to get rid of the Green Gap, or Green Belt as it is called here, between Cheshire East and Stockport.
Keith Chapman
Monday 15th February 2016 at 8:55 pm
Pete, I was unable to attend the meeting you were present at due to a work commitment, but I have attended all subsequent meetings and they have been very interesting and worthwhile. I don't think the Neighbourhood plan will have an impact on the current site allocations and if that was your reason for thinking of being involved you are right not to continue. The limitations on local plans apply just as much to Cheshire West as to Cheshire East as their powers are defined by statute. Involvement in the Neighbourhood Plan process is not about the current position on the Local Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan will cover many aspects of development in the town - for example the town centre, roads, schools etc. It will influence future plans although it cannot override any Local Plan. I was elected to Wilmslow Town Council last year, and I have been delighted to find that it is in no way driven by local politics. Councillors whether Conservative or Independent make up their own minds on issues in a non partisan way. Building a toilet block in the Carrs, organising the Party in the Carrs, supporting local groups with grant funding are matters which contribute to life in the town, and I have enjoyed being part of that positive process. Relationships between councillors are very good, regardless of the ticket they stood on. I would repeat my request to ask as many people as possible to join the local plan process. We are hoping to find volunteers to work on drawing up and realising specific aspects of Wilmslow development. We want all views represented. KEITH CHAPMAN (Councillor Wilmslow East)