Call for Royal London's plans to be reconsidered after "unlawful" decision

trust

Wilmslow Civic Trust is calling for a planning application to to be reconsidered by the Strategic Planning Board because the decision they reached last month was "unlawful".

The Strategic Planning Board approved an application from Royal London for a residential development of 60 homes on land west of Alderley Road (reference 17/5837M) at its meeting on Wednesday, 28th March.

The Wilmslow Civic Trust submitted a letter on 21st December 2017 raising several points and strongly objecting to the proposed development. However, there was no reference to Trust's letter or views in the officer's report to the Strategic Planning Board. As a result the Trust's views were not considered or discussed at the meeting before a decision was reached on the planning application.

Whilst the representations from local residents were summarised in the committee report, members of Wilmslow Civic Trust feel these do not cover some of the most relevant planning points raised in their letter, including the lack of reference to the Three Wilmslow Parks Supplementary Guidance.

In a letter to Council Leader Rachel Bailey, Peter Yates wrote "The lack of reference to the Three Wilmslow Parks SPG, either within the Committee report or the discussion at the Committee, makes the decision reached by the Strategic Planning Board on March 28th unlawful."

"It is therefore recommended that the application be reported back to the Committee incorporating reference under Other Material Considerations to the Three Wilmslow Parks SPG (at the same time the other omissions in the list should be referred to).

"In addition, the views of the Wilmslow Civic Trust should be reported to the Committee in a similar way to other Civic Societies. For example, Macclesfield Civic Society's views are separately and comprehensively reported to the both the Northern and Strategic Planning Board meetings."

A Cheshire East Council spokesperson said: “We can confirm that we have received correspondence from the Wilmslow Civic Society about this planning application and we are in the process of responding to them.

The council does not agree that the decision in this case was unlawful. There is nothing to add to this at this stage.”

Tags:
Planning Applications, Royal London, Wilmslow Civic Trust
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

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

Pete Taylor
Thursday 26th April 2018 at 5:52 pm
As a matter of fact; not only did the Wilmslow Civic Trust refer to the Wilmslow Three Parks document in their objection so did several of the other objectors, including some of us who have Legal Covenants with Royal London, which forbid the erection of any building whatsoever on the agricultural field.

Lisa, is it possible that we could be told the "spokesperson's" name who gave this legal opinion? Was this someone working in the Planning Department, or an elected Councillor?
Lisa Reeves
Thursday 26th April 2018 at 6:23 pm
Hi Pete, the comment was issued by the media team so I do not have a name,
Manuel Golding
Friday 27th April 2018 at 12:38 pm
"The council does not agree that the decision in this case was unlawful."
It would say that, wouldn't it, to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies when she was giving evidence at the famous Old Bailey trial in the '60s.
As for 17/5837M application as above article, we see something very suspect in the planning officer's submission where he has I suggest, deliberately treated the WCT submission as "a non event" and ignored all reference to Wilmslow 3 Parks policy guidelines.
Why has the officer tampered with the evidence? For whose gain? Are his actions a
deliberate attempt to manipulate the SPB members? If not, why did he leave out vitally important evidence?
What is going on at the CECs planning department? Are they simply & collectively incompetent and not up to the job? Or is something far more serious going on? Is it rank bad incompetent management at the top of the department? If yes, then heads must roll, a clean sweep of the below standard heads.
These and other very serious questions need to be answered by the leadership and without delay.
And then we must turn to the Lidl application where there is further evidence of much of the above.
These two cases cannot be a mere coincidence? Surely not!
Maria Quin
Wednesday 2nd May 2018 at 4:16 pm
I totally agree, Manuel and believe that - if those responsible for these skulduggery and poor decisions worked in any other business or industry - not only would they be sacked - they’d be imprisoned! It’s a disgrace and I can’t understand how they’re getting away with it!
John Fallows
Wednesday 2nd May 2018 at 4:46 pm
Hmm ... I recall the Council legal officer at the Adlington Road enquiry interjecting with something along the lines of "my independent advice is that it's perfectly legal for you to approve this".