Brownfield sites declared not sufficient to save green belt

They may have listened , but didn't HEAR, the message. Don't build on Green Belt.
Funnily enough the clue's in the name, Green Belt not brick or concrete belt......
It's just exasperating !!!!
The good people of ROW have obviously done a lot of hard work in their own time ,
To try or save the green that we have & I commend them for it , don't give up chaps
Wilmslow needs a fighting committee to look after it.

New housing should be in Wilmslow itself if at all possible and any brownfield sites that the council have not turned down should be used( I assume they didn't turn all brown field sites down). Also all empty commercial properties should be considered for conversion to residential homes. I think that building lots of houses in small numbers across Wilmslow rather than having more sprawling developments on green fields is the way forward it is less intrusive and generally easier to accept. Keep going RoW you have huge support.

The content of the meeting held last week with CEC and RoW is misrepresented.It is CEC's refusal to accept that we have found the 400 unit opportunities on brown sites we were challenged to do. It is agreed that some of these sites are in the Greenbelt but they are brown and must be developed before decimating the Greenbelt with major developments. CEC have introduced a new term, "Pepper Potting." Interpreting this defence mechanism it means they are opposed to developing small communities on the green curtilage of mixed sites as these will slowly erode the Greenbelt. Instead they accede to the pressure brought about by failed government policies that have allowed the population of the UK too rapidly and favour building thousands of houses on pure greenbelt land: A quick fix that fails to take into account a time scale of some 20 years. CEC make no effort to market the brown sites in the town. Instead they ask RoW to do it for them and to keep them informed. RoW did list sites impinging on Wilmslow but only to draw attention to them and check they are being counted towards the CEC targets. Being assured they are counted in RoW removed them from their list immediately after the meeting and reduced the unit capability of other sites in the light of shared information. This new list brings the level of disagreement between the two parties much closer. The new figures as of today are:

* Number of brown site opportunities agreed with CEC = 162
* Number of brown site opportunities easily available within the 20 year period = 332
* Probable number of brown site opportunities over the 20 year period = 493

These figures are based on the latest SHLAA plus planning applications, all CEC information from their website. RoW weekly updates steadily increases numbers towards the target figure.

CEC continue to ignore the figures for empty office space in the town. Much of this could be converted into desirable apartments, the number of which could take us well beyond the target figure. Again CEC is being defensive explaining that, when the UK comes out of recession extra office space will be required. Fine, should there ever be such a demand but, in the meantime CEC needs to convert this space to assist the housing need and demonstrate their commitment to protect the Greenbelt.

It is all about CEC adopting the government guidelines: Convert empty office space. Do not develop the Greenbelt until all brown sites are used, including brown sites in the Greenbelt as long as they do not remove the openness of the countryside. They need to offer incentives to builders so as to exploit every opportunity available to protect the Greenbelt. RoW and other concerned groups are offering CEC a helping hand to bring about a sustainable development strategy but it seems we are to be disregarded because we do not sufficiently share their understanding. Not the case. We do understand but do not agree.

I congratulate Roger and all his comrades for all the endless hours of time they have put in to preserve our green belt against unnecessary development. Had they not struggled with CEC then I suspect that the outcome could have been far worse. But, is it right that a group of committed individuals using thier own resources have had to battle with the Leviathan which is CEC with all its resources. It is surely a grossly unfair contest. Particularly so when the Council has the final "say" ,regardless of the quality of the arguments presented.
In the February edition of "InTouch" the Conservative party's local newsletter, they claim to be" working with residents and developers to identify as many brownfield sites as possible ". (end quote) Can you substantiate this claim Councillors? How have you participated in the debate? How many sites you identified? Have you pressed CEC to "count" empty office accommodation as potential housing units. There is 150,000 f.s. empty space in Wilmslow; the Government thinks you should be considering it.
It is reported that CEC has recieved 10,000 responses to the Local Plan Consultation and they are yet to be collated. Is it not premature of CEC to start to pronounce on the outcome by this news release?

Last December Cheshire East said there were only brownfield sites available for 142 homes. Earlier this month that number had increased to 170, an increase of 28, and these would be deliverable by 2020. If in the space of 3 months brownfield sites for 28 homes have come forward then extrapolating this to a year the number will be 112 and over 10 years the number could be 1,120! More than enough than the 400 homes said to be needed by 2030. These brownfield sites have come forward for development with no effort on the part of CE to find them. So how many might be found as a result of a targeted effort to go out and around the town to uncover further brownfield sites? In addition the updated Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment which was published in the middle of the consultation period which listed further brownfield sites. RoW send a revised list of potential brownfield sites to CE within the consultation period but CE have not yet looked at them! What then are the exceptional circumstances that justify CE putting forward greenbelt sites for housing and ‘safeguarding’ a site in the greenbelt for future development? Are local residents going to sit back and tolerate the shortcomings of our local elected councillors?

If this response is to be the general strategy of CEC, then may the
good Lord help its citizens. The statement offered here by CE is a
total travesty, a distortion of events and honest efforts by RoW.

RoW has been doing the job that CE should have been doing - exploring
possible brown field sites & talking to those landowners of the
identified lands for possible housing development. But no, it leaves
all that to its council tax payers because it was either just incapable
or too lazy to undertake what should be its job itself. And then it
has the temerity to say it "has has pursued a constructive dialogue
with the residents of
Wilmslow - and this has led, we believe, to a better mutual
understanding of each others position."

NO, wrong. Cheshire East has not "pursued a constructive dialogue" and
there has been scant recognition towards a "mutual understanding" of
RoW's position by this discredited authority. It has consistently
refused to acknowledge there are more than enough brownfield, mixed &
windfall sites already available and has ignored there will be
numerous others coming to the fore over the 20 years life of the Local
Plan.

It has the cheek to tell us we can not put forward sites that are
brown but within the greenbelt, but has been pushing, from day one, to
allow development on an existing greenbelt site at Royal London - on
greenbelt, within greenbelt. Explain that? It strikes me that Cheshire
East, its leadership & its officers, have an agenda - that it WILL,
come hell or high water, approve home development on Royal London's
greenbelt, whilst trying to ignore our legitimate contenders. WHY?
What is the deal?

For example, it has attempted to disregard a site that has been empty
of human habitation for around 10 years, use to accommodate around 57
people; when we put the site forward as a development possibility for
30+ home units, it tells us that that will be a minus 27 - why?
Because it did accommodate 57. Yes, we say, but that was over 10 years
ago, no one since. It is this form of "mutual understanding" which is
a 'One Way street' and we at RoW reject out of hand.

We eventually managed to get Cllr Jones to accept "brownfields first"
but the reality is that CE rejects this in talks. We asked them again
last week about the 150000+ sq ft of empty office space in Wilmslow -
why is CE not following Government guidelines in talking to owners of
these empty offices to persuade them to convert some of their offices
to living spaces? We were told it couldn't do that - couldn't or did
not want to as it would ruin its agenda?

CE's statement goes on -
"it remains the view of the Council that the future development needs
of Wilmslow cannot be met from Brownfield land alone. We are grateful
for the many suggestions put forward by the residents of Wilmslow -
however some of these sites are not in fact in Wilmslow (e.g. in
Alderley Edge or Handforth) and so can't be counted twice - and others
are themselves actually in the green belt."
My answer - it remains "the view of the Council" because it wishes it
to remain its view, at all cost. The needs of Wilmslow over the next
20 years can easily be met by brownfields, mixed & windfall
developments alone. We have shown this but as it "remains the view"
the Council will continue to reject these. RoW's view of the sites
mentioned above, in Alderley, refers to Harden Park for e'g. as such a
build there will have an effect upon Wilmslow. Okay, we appreciated it
could not be counted "twice", and we didn't expect it to. But the
statement above goes on to say "...others are themselves in the
greenbelt" - in other words RoW must not expect to build within the
greenbelt but then we come back to the Royal London site, do we not?

A further statement by CE is as follows -
"By proposing sites that are in the green belt the residents group
appears to be acknowledging that there is not enough development land
outside of it." We acknowledge nothing of the sort, quite the
contrary. This is typical PR double speak! We are saying that existing
built on areas within the greenbelt must be allowed to be used for
dwelling development. Again, look at the proposal by CE to build on
RLs greenbelt.

CE continues -
"This means that the debate is starting to shift from a position where
many were questioning the need to look at green belt to perhaps a
debate about what sort of development should go into it." NO,
emphatically NO! The only shifting (in debate) is that by CE, not RoW.
We believe that building must be allowed within the already brownfield
areas within greenbelt. RoW is adamant that NO BUILDING OF ANY KIND
MUST GO INTO EXISTING GREENBELT, including at RL.

CE then continues -
"The Council would rather see some small changes in green belt
boundary and some new development in one place - rather than a steady
building and pepper potting of development right across the
countryside. However we acknowledge others may disagree.". Very
magnanimous of it to accept "others may disagree" with its agenda!
RoW's suggested suitable & adequate sites will not require any change
to the existing & highly valuable greenbelt. It seems that the
Council's desire to "...see some small changes in green belt boundary
and some new development in one place" could be a sop to developers
who, for obvious reasons, prefer a virgin green field to shove their
diggers into rather than clear brownfield sites. But that should and
must not be on the Council's agenda. Ce came up with the phrase
"pepper potting" to describe the multi brownfield sites we have put
forward. Even though the Council is attempting to rubbish these sites
scattered as they maybe around the town, they will bring renewed
vigour within the town area, acting as a catalyst for rejuvenation of
and within the town. Such build will not be "right across the
countryside" but mainly within the inner town areas.

There are other extremely disturbing aspects of CEs response which
must put into question this Authority's honest dealings with RoW.
Here it is pre-judging and pre-ordaining its "final" assessment of the
now discredited faux "consultation". It tells us it has over 10000
responses to look at & analyse but is already passing judgement & at
the same time inferring RoW doesn't know what it is talking about. It
is worth pointing out to readers, the electorate, that RoW last month
delivered, by agreement and before the closure of the consultation, its latest updated brownfield etc listing. This new list was based on the new SHLAA revision which was published
in the middle of the latest "consultation" period. CE's statement in the above article shows conclusively that it has not bothered to investigate more fully or to even consider this.

I believe the people of Wilmslow have been very badly let down by our
elected representatives, both those councillors on CE and on Wilmslow
Town Council, in not whole heartily standing up for Wilmslow's green
future - WTC by pursuing the mirage of "employment" on the RL site (it
has nearly 10000 sq ft of empty offices), thus giving some tacit agreement
for some greenbelt development on that site - how woefully and naively short-sighted: CE councillors not putting themselves to the forefront in the RoW fight to save the
town's greenbelt. Shame on each and everyone of them!

Does anyone truly believes that CEC has "pursued a constructive
dialogue" and with "mutual understanding" with RoW? Truly believes
there is no hidden agenda?

Our fight will continue, we will not be rolled over, have our legitimate and honest endevours summarily dismissed and trampled on by the likes of CE's communications "talking heads".

Keep going ROW.

1600 jobs to go at Astra Zeneca surely changes the requirement for both housing and office space?

I concur with Peter Taylor that the housing situation must now be revisited as the recent news regarding the loss of in excess of two thousand jobs at Astra Zeneca will impact upon the need for more housing. After all, we don't want to become a ghost town just to keep housing developers employed, do we?