Councillors to consider sites proposed for development in next phase of Local Plan

Development -  general view 2

Councillors are to consider the next phase of Cheshire East's development plan which includes proposals for three new housing developments in Alderley Edge.

The latest version of the second stage of Cheshire East Council's Local Plan – the site allocations and development policies document (SADPD) – will be considered by members of the authority's strategic planning board on 24 July.

The document, once finalised, will provide the approved framework for housing, employment, and other key infrastructure sites up to 2030.

Following directly on from the Local Plan Strategy adopted in 2017, the SADPD provides policies to guide new development, including housing, mainly within the smaller towns and larger villages - including Alderley Edge

The majority of development needs have already been provided for through the Local Plan Strategy. The sites in the SADPD will be non-strategic – generally sites of fewer than 60 homes or two hectares (five acres) in size.

The SADPD identifies for development in the local service centres of Alderley Edge, Audlem, Bollington, Chelford, Disley, Holmes Chapel, Mobberley and Prestbury.

Whilst the council says development requirements in Bunbury, Goostrey, Haslington, Shavington and Wrenbury can be met by development that has already been completed and schemes with planning permission.

In addition, the SADPD identifies further site allocations in some of the key service centres with further site allocations in Congleton, Middlewich and Poynton.

In sites allocated for development in Alderley Edge are:

  • Site ALD 1 - Land adjacent to Jenny Heyes The land adjacent to Jenny Heyes is allocated for residential development for around 10 new homes. This greenfield site is 0.47 ha in size and is located to the north east of Alderley Edge, on Heyes Lane.
  • Site ALD 2 - Ryleys Farm, north of Chelford Road The land at Ryleys Farm, north of Chelford Road is allocated for residential development for around 45 new homes. This greenfield site is 1.6 ha in size and is located to the west of Alderley Edge, north of Chelford Road.
  • Site ALD 4 - Land north of Beech Road The land north of Beech Road is allocated for residential development for around 35 new homes.This greenfield site is 2.9 ha in size and is located to the north of Alderley Edge, north of Beech Road.

Additionally safeguarded land is identified in Green Belt areas and may be required to meet longer-term development needs.

Land allocated for safeguarding in Alderley Edge is:

  • Site ALD 3 - Ryleys Farm (safeguarded) Land at Ryleys Farm is designated as 2.70 ha of safeguarded land. It remains in the open countryside and is not allocated for development at the present time.

When adopted, the SADPD will replace the old policies of the three former borough local plans, covering Macclesfield, Congleton and Crewe and Nantwich, dating back to 2004, and address current planning issues – such as climate change mitigation, housing for older people and improving the quality and variety of new homes.

Councillor Toni Fox, Cheshire East Council cabinet member for planning, said: "Having reviewed the options, we recognise the need to have a robust and up-to-date planning framework to avoid a repeat of the unplanned and speculative developments that arose in this borough in recent years. To reflect the changed government planning guidance, we are putting in place a raft of fresh planning policies that will better equip us to shape and manage sustainable development of the borough.

"This plan takes account of consultation responses to the draft document published last September and I'm pleased to say that extra effort has been made, since then, to engage with town and parish councils about the various proposals.

"As well as updating our planning policies, the SADPD identifies new development areas to meet the needs of certain settlements and particular sections of our communities. Among these are plans for fresh residential sites for Gypsies and Travellers and a new transit site to provide safe and regulated accommodation for those passing through the borough.

"In some locations, small allocations are proposed in the greenbelt. This is necessary to meet localised needs in those villages and to ensure no further greenbelt changes are made until at least the 2040s.

"Completion of the site allocations plan is an important step towards securing a strong and resilient basis for planning in Cheshire East, including maintaining a five-year supply of housing land. We want to be able to review our Local Plan in future from a position of strength – without risking a planning free-for all."

In 2018/19 a record 3,062 new homes were completed in Cheshire East.

Cllr Fox added: "Despite such healthy home building, our five-year supply continues to be challenged by certain sections of the development industry, bent on promoting sites outside of the Local Plan.

"The current Local Plan target of 1,800 homes per year is reflective of past economic ambitions and is almost 50 per cent higher than the government's own calculation of housing need for the borough using their new methodology.

"We want to move promptly to a position whereby our five-year supply targets are closer aligned with the national methodology – and so we will be looking to assess which parts of Local Plan Strategy need to be reviewed and updated.

"To do this, we need to move on with the rest of the Local Plan and so publish the SADPD for formal consultation. This will allow the plan to progress to external examination, where all parties can seek independent scrutiny."

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

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

Nick Jones
Wednesday 17th July 2019 at 2:19 pm
Cllr Fox.. Thank goodness someone is applying some common sense here...
Meaningful development yes.. speculative land banking .. No.
Bob Bracegirdle
Wednesday 17th July 2019 at 4:37 pm
I wonder what we'll do when nothing is left of East Cheshire except concrete and houses. Certainly one cannot see any provision for better public transport here - just more cars.
Manuel Golding
Wednesday 17th July 2019 at 5:17 pm
A VERY welcome change even reversal of the previous Conservative administration's policy of doing the developers' bidding. We are clearly seeing the voters' concerns with the Conservative policy being addressed by the new joint Independent (including RoW) group/Labour council.
Wilmslow voters will now begin to appreciate the "win" they voted for by returning Residents of Wilmslow candidates in place of the Conservative yes-men.
In effect, the only new housing CEC requires is probably under 500 new abodes. At the same time, developers must be pointed to the numerous Brown-Field sites; generally these sites do not offer such a speedy & more profitable return than do pristine Green Belt & fields.
Allied these points to the greatly reduced housing requirement numbers is the governments figure for approx 50% less than past; RoW attempted to press the flawed housing numbers to the "independent" housing inspector (figures from the government's ONS) which Mr Pratt chose to ignore. His decisions were aided by the developer's QC & the persistent house builder lobbyists before him.
The losers being Cheshire East residents, the voters, the winners being developers. And they are still at it using their panoply of attack. Hopefully this time CEC will be thinking primarily of the voters and residents.
More power to your elbow Cllr Toni Fox, something the voters forgot existed under the Conservative fiefdom.
David Smith
Thursday 18th July 2019 at 10:19 am
If we build houses around here and they are bought by non-UK citizens for purposes of renting or as an 'investment' or just to have in case they might one day want to come and live here OR the people who buy them get in their car every day and drive to a place of work somewhere else in the Northwest (and most likely not even in Cheshire East) then it is quite obvious to me that we do NOT need any more housing around here.
How about finding out just who buys the thousands of new 'boxes' that have been sited in this part of our community and the details of where they work? Then we can make a decision as to whether these ‘homes’ NEED to be built around here. It could be that someone owns the acres of land and makes a case for ‘providing homes for the needy’, so they then get built at great financial benefit to the owner of the land. It wouldn’t surprise me if every ‘blurb’ from the house builders states something along the lines of “Easy access to the motorway system of the Northwest” - which is another way of saying ‘live here and drive miles away to your place of employment’. I say ‘go and live near there - not around here’. What do YOU say?
Keith Chapman
Friday 19th July 2019 at 8:19 pm
Manuel, sorry but ROW are just pawns in Labour’s game. We have a Labour council put into office by an ROW sell out. The
ROW councillors should stand as Labour candidates next time, and not pretend they are independents. O
Roger Bagguley
Monday 22nd July 2019 at 8:56 pm
Keith

Along with the Independent group RoW campaigned for a change in the way Cheshire East was being run. Clearly the voting public had serious concerns about local issues that seemed not to be being addressed by the ruling Conservatives.

Cheshire East is a big local authority and we in the north of the borough need to understand that the affluence we enjoy is not shared equally in other areas and respect the fact that Labour offers a better way of life. Not all Labour voting people are socialists and I guess these are represented by the councillors RoW Independents are currently working hard with in order to deliver the change the voting public clearly wanted. The planned for committee system, replacing the Conservative favoured cabinet model, will bring about proportional representation. This will include members of all parties working together for the good of the whole borough not for just those living in the more affluent areas like Wilmslow.

Personally I am very excited at the prospect and look forward to improvements being made in the way Cheshire East is being run. Whether the next time round is led by Labour, Indepenents, or Conservatives depends upon how this period of change goes down with the voting public.
Keith Chapman
Tuesday 23rd July 2019 at 11:42 am
Thank you Roger for your balanced response. I am hoping for a positive outcome like you, whoever is running Cheshire East. I just feel Independents should remain independent, and ROW could have voted issue by issue with Labour instead of joining them. I can see some arguments for the committee system provided the committees are well run. If they just become talking shops there is a risk of paralysis. Let’s see what the new regime delivers. It is too early to pass judgement, and we should remain optimistic.
David Jefferay
Tuesday 30th July 2019 at 10:21 pm
On the committee system thing, it's worth pointing out that when it was voted on in May it was overwhelmingly supported, not only by Labour and the Independent group, but also by the Conservatives (unlike last year). It has good, cross party support.

Keith, I think I've commented about it before but in the immediate aftermath of the elections, we had to make quick decisions and, based on their recent history, we (the Independent group) just did not have the confidence that the Conservative group at Cheshire East would be supportive in getting the reforms through that we needed so we decided to (temporarily) work with Labour. I think you probably understand why we had that lack of confidence from your experience dealing with the previous Conservative leadership during your time on town council.
Make no mistake though, we are under no obligation to support them in any votes and this is just an interim arrangement until the committee based system is implemented next year.
Cheers, Dave.

Add Your Comment

Share what you think of this story. In order to post a comment click here to sign in or register to become a member (it's free and will only take one minute).