Planning board divided over demolition of house to create access for 200 new homes


The Strategic Planning Board were divided over plans to demolish a house to create an access for a new residential development of over 200 homes in Handforth.

The Planning Officer recommended that the Planning Board refused the applicant permission to demolish 15 Hampson Crescent, create a new vehicular and pedestrian access from Meriton Road / Hampson Crescent, realign Dobbin Brook and create a temporary construction haul road and compound from Sagars Road.

The site forms part of site LPS 34 in the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy which has outline planning consent for up to 250 dwellings. A reserved matters application is currently being considered for 217 dwellings.

In the end, members of the Strategic Planning Board approved the application with 8 votes in favour and 4 against.

Councillor David Jefferay said "It was a very difficult decision because there is going to be significant disruption for the residents and Sagar Road is likely to be damaged by the construction traffic for which Cheshire East Council (ultimately the council tax payer) will have to pick up the bill. However, it is allocated as a strategic site in the local plan and planning permission for the access on Hampson Crescent had already been approved.

"In the end, I couldn't in good conscience endorse it though because of the impact on residents so I voted against."

In a report prepared for the meeting on Wednesday, 24th July, the Planning Officer stated "The proposed access through the site of 15 Hampson Crescent was approved as part of the outline permission and therefore no issues can be raised with regard to the principle of this in terms of highway impact or impact upon neighbouring properties.

"The application site is a Strategic Site within the CELPS, and in order for the allocated houses to be delivered on the site, construction access has to be achieved. The only options for this are via Meriton Road or Sagars Road. There is clearly significant local opposition to the use of either of these routes, which is acknowledged, however, one or both routes must be used.

"The advice from the Strategic Infrastructure Manager is that either road could be used, but it is recommended that both are used so that the burden is shared. The proposed access routes are therefore acceptable from a highways perspective. There is also no significant impact upon protected trees arising from the proposed development. Additional, more detailed proposals have also been provided for the Hampson Crescent access, Brook culvert, retaining structure and open space.

"As a standalone application, the submitted details do raise concerns in terms of the extent of biodiversity mitigation, the provision of pedestrian and cycle links to the east, and the form of the proposed landscaping. There is considered to be conflict with the development plan arising from all these matters.

"In addition, the construction access route and proposed site compound is located immediately adjacent to existing residential properties and is considered to result in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance, contrary to policy DC3 of the MBLP and SE12 of the CELPS. Comments from the Environment Agency are awaited on whether the revised proposals for the realignment of Dobbin Brook are acceptable and will be reported as an update, as will comments from the LLFA."

Planning Applications


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

Rick Andrews
Thursday 25th July 2019 at 9:18 am
Why should the council (us) pay to fix the access roads. Surely if the roads are damaged, the developers should be required to repair or replace. This should be made a condition of any planning application. Seems obvious, but CEC seem to be ruled by the developers’ interests. ?
David Jefferay
Thursday 25th July 2019 at 10:53 am
That's the advice that was given in the meeting, Rick. They are public highways and therefore the council is responsible for ensuring they are maintained. The applicant's position on the matter is stated in their response to Handforth Parish Council's comments on the application (uploaded to the planning portal on 11th June).
Cheers, Dave
Janet Taylor
Thursday 25th July 2019 at 2:45 pm
This has got to be the most ridiculous planning decision ever made by CEC, Sagars Road has a weight restriction which will now be ignored, why was the restriction placed if not because the road cannot withstand heavy vehicles. These houses are in Styal and the access already exists into Styal, cannot see why it isn't being used.
Richard Armstead
Thursday 25th July 2019 at 4:26 pm
Handforth again is set to suffer on the back of another inconsiderate planning decision. Stage 1 was the designation of this green belt reserve as a suitable site for a housing development in the LPS 2017. Stage 2 was the approval for outline planning permission to create access and egress from an established residential area directly into the middle of Handforth. This stage was the opportunity to pave Clay Lane to its junction with Station Rd Styal - no demolition required no congestion risk no risk to life and limb and would prevent Handforth further disadvantaged as
at the northern end Clay Lane meets the airport relief road.

So it is that at Stage 3 Handforth looks forward to increased congestion increased air pollution and a significant risk to the general public. This application states that all construction traffic will turn left into Wilmslow Road from Meriton Rd and Sagars Rd and traffic via The Link and Bulkely Rd will not be allowed. Of course there is no mention of of how this will be ensured supervised monitored or controlled.

Councillor Gardiner had the temerity to say that one cannot make an omellete without breaking eggs. Let us hope there are no broken legs broken roads broken sewers and broken pavements because the planning in CE is already broken and promises to safeguard the Green Belt are already forgotten. Next comes Handforth Garden Village on land previously reserved for recreation. Welcome to the Manchester Conurbation.
Sheila Rovira
Sunday 28th July 2019 at 4:59 pm
Handforth is now gridlocked what’s 300 plus more cars ,it’s only handforth .
We have now got the much awaited bye pass to bramhall and as I write this it’s closed because of once again flooded
We are the dumping ground for CEC because of the new bye pass we have got more traffic with people from surrounding areas coming through handforth
Why can’t styal have the entrance and exit would be a much better option
Peter Tierney
Sunday 28th July 2019 at 7:33 pm
Would anyone know whether the individual votes of the Strategic Planning Board are recorded publicly and transparently - or does the current system preclude that still?
David Jefferay
Tuesday 30th July 2019 at 8:07 am
Hi Peter, I don't think the votes for and against are named in the minutes and I don't know if there is a mechanism for a named vote to be requested as there is at full council meetings. Sorry, I can't remember who else voted against either. All I can suggest is that you listen to the audio recording to ascertain who spoke out against the development and infer from that.
Peter Tierney
Tuesday 30th July 2019 at 7:09 pm
Thank you David, l appreciate that as well as your vote against this planned access. I don’t live on either road affected so can’t be accused of nimbyism here but with Handforth already a growing pinch point for traffic,as well as the disruption to the residents of the roads which will be affected in both the short and longer term, I’m glad that there are people such as yourself who will voice concerns for existing residents,including those in other wards . Although it was a relief to unseat the previous administration for Cheshire East I wish some further wards had returned Independents!
David Smith
Wednesday 31st July 2019 at 6:34 pm
Permission should be refused.
Let's wait until all the other developments have been completed round here and a 12 month probation period has taken place so we can all judge whether the roads and other infrastructure can take any more housing development. It’s all too much too soon. The town needs a breather.
Simon Rodrigues
Wednesday 31st July 2019 at 8:23 pm
Sad to think you can have a house knocked down next to you then have a major road to an estate. Don’t see how that can be acceptable really is disappointing to see the relax of the green belt laws and the beautiful views and nature to be distorted with bricks and motor for profitable gain.
David Smith
Thursday 1st August 2019 at 11:50 pm
Apologies - I only read the headline before posting my comment and thought the decision had not yet been made.
It seems now that I can add David Jefferay to the list of 'Muppet' councillors who have presided over us for far too long and were almost cast aside in the last election to be replaced by 'the good guys' who now seem to be no different and were just masquerading under a different name - the of Residents of Wilmslow (RoW). Leopards don't change their spots but a different leopard can have almost identical spots - so what's the difference? Before the election I happened to fall into conversation with someone whilst waiting to pay for parking in the Sainsbury’s car park in town and the gentleman said that things would change for the better soon because there was a really good candidate called Jefferay who was standing for RoW. I said that it was a shame they weren't putting up a candidate for the Lacey Green ward too. Any more of this crass decision-making Mr Jefferay and you will be out next time with a stain on your character as a creditable person who can be trusted. You even state the reason that this should not have been approved - "It was a very difficult decision because there is going to be significant disruption for the residents and Sagars Road is likely to be damaged by the construction traffic for which Cheshire East Council (ultimately the council tax payer) will have to pick up the bill". I totally agree with Rick Andrews who doesn’t see why the cost of putting right the damage to the local roads by the construction traffic should not come out of the profit from building all these unnecessary ‘boxes’ - sorry ‘homes’. I suppose there will be a set of traffic lights next to let the 200 plus cars out onto the A34 and so bring traffic to a standstill there more often. Plus GREENBELT Mr Jefferay - it ISN’T for houses.
Pete Taylor
Friday 2nd August 2019 at 8:13 am
@David Smith, I suggest that you check your facts before shooting from the hip. You owe David Jefferay an apology.
David Jefferay
Friday 2nd August 2019 at 10:26 am
@Mr Smith, my contact details are on the Cheshire East website, please can you give me a call to discuss or email me and I'll call you back. I think there is a misunderstanding here but I'm not going to get into an online argument. It doesn't achieve anything. Thanks.
David Smith
Saturday 3rd August 2019 at 9:52 am
Sorry. I misread the paragraph beginning ""It was a very difficult decision because ..." Upon first reading it seemed as though you were of the opinion that nothing could be done because access planning permission had already been approved. The way your comments are reported came across at first reading that although it was a ‘difficult decision’ you were in fact voting in favour - which was the final outcome at 8 to 4. I was already in agreement with Rick Andrews’ first comment that the taxpayer shouldn’t pay for road damage (why should this ever be in doubt?) so misread the next short sentence that quite clearly had you stating that you voted against.
I can only apologise again and must take more care reading news items in future.
I’m perversely quite heartened that I made a mistake and that you did stand up to vote against, which also confirms the sentiment and support attributed by the gentleman I conversed with whilst waiting to buy a parking ticket in Sainsbury’s car park - that you were going to be fine councillor and that more of RoW is what we need around here. Shame that you were in a minority and think that we all should see how the voting went so that we know who is pressing to make such unwanted changes to the town in which we live. I am pleased that you made a stance and in that respect we are of the same mind about what has been going on within Cheshire East in the recent past. It’s still early days but as a RoW councillor - and sadly not mine - I give you my support, which I am at the moment not finding easy to give to my own councillor.
So I can only apologise again and will have your spots removed to see you in future as the roaring lion that I had assumed you always were!
I hope that is a satisfactory apology?
David Jefferay
Saturday 3rd August 2019 at 1:41 pm
Thank you Mr Smith, much appreciated but far more than was necessary. Mistakes happen. It's not the first time I've been called a muppet and quite sure it won't be the last.
Richard Armstead
Saturday 17th August 2019 at 9:58 am
Where lurketh the CE ward councillor for this development site? The site itself sits within the Styal Parish Council boundary which is part of the Wilmslow CE Lacey Green Ward. The responsible cllr is Don Stockton. His involvement is hard to find. Where also are the Lacey Green Wilmslow town councillors protecting the Green Belt?

Styal Council were quite happy to prevent access and egress from the Clay Lane/Station Rd side which would have helped share the burden of congestion air pollution and noise. Nope - let Handforth have it.

The time has come for the Styal Wilmslow and Handforth Parish Councils to work more closely together since what happens to each affects the other. Talk about 'not in my back yard'.