‘Victories achieved for Wilmslow in a no-win situation’

b70f030367d89309368cbf47b700966e

Wilmslow's Conservative Cheshire East councillors have announced they are backing the Local Plan, following the Council's unveiling of the development sites they are proposing for inclusion in the final document.

Councillors Gary Barton, Wesley Fitzgerald, Rod Menlove, Don Stockton and Paul Whiteley have described the outcome as "Victories achieved for Wilmslow in a no-win situation" and issued the following statement:

"The local plan is one the most important tasks that Cheshire East Council has yet undertaken. Balancing the needs of a growing population, changing living habits and the need for affordable housing against a desire to protect our green spaces is a daunting challenge. In a desirable area such as Wilmslow, this is even more difficult as our town is very much in developers' crosshairs.

"Market surveys have stated that Cheshire East as a whole requires more than 27,000 new homes to be built by 2030, and the same surveys recommended that 1,300 homes should be built in Wilmslow over the same period.

"Developers have sought a much higher number. We are satisfied that the campaigning by Conservative Councillors in Wilmslow has ensured that the Local Plan will recommend only 400 houses should be built in our town over the 20 year period of the plan. We are also delighted that the land off Alderley Road opposite Royal London will be listed as a protected green space.

"The plan ensures that the land behind Cumber Lane will be safeguarded from development during its life, despite ongoing planning applications from developers. The development on the land off Adlington Road is a difficult position and one largely dictated by decisions made over 20 years ago. However, accepting development on this land has enabled Cheshire East to protect large sections of green belt land around Wilmslow.

"Your Conservative Councillors have also ensured that there will be no further major developments in Dean Row. We will continue to campaign for brown field sites to be considered ahead of any new housing developments on the green belt, and remain opposed to the building of houses at Royal London.

"It has never been an option for Cheshire East to say 'no' to development in Wilmslow. Cheshire East has one of the highest rates of single occupancy of four+ bedroom houses in the UK. Increased family breakdown also means fewer people living in existing properties and creates a need for more one and two bedroom homes to be built. If we had proposed a 'zero' house building policy for Wilmslow, this would have been utterly rejected by the Planning Inspectors – a rejection that would have given free rein to developers.

"We understand the impact new developments can have on existing homes, and we also understand that residents want their children to be able to buy homes in Wilmslow in the future. It is never possible to achieve a perfect result. However, the work and campaigning by Conservative Councillors has given Wilmslow one of the lowest allocations of new housing in Cheshire East and this plan goes a long way to protecting our precious green spaces."

Click here to view a copy of the "Emerging Core Strategy" which contains further information and maps showing all the proposed development sites. (Please note this is a large file and may take a while to download.)

Map showing the proposed development sites in Wilmslow. Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordinance survey 100049045.

Tags:
Don Stockton, Gary Barton, Local Plan, Paul Whiteley, Rod Menlove, Wesley Fitzgerald
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

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

Martin Wells
Wednesday 18th September 2013 at 8:09 pm
Protecting a small part of Green Belt and losing large swathes of land e.g next to Royal London is a pathetic "result". This was never a "no win" situation. RoW have proven that there is ample brown field land available for housing. What this is, is the path of least resistance for developers, land owners and the Council who, by their own admission along the way, had planned this and were never going to "listen".
Gary Barton
Thursday 19th September 2013 at 12:17 am
RoW’s figures on new housing already counted against the 2010 – 2030 local plan quota are under dispute. It is only new homes given planning permission since 2010 that count towards the quota. If a house has been built since 2010, but it was given planning permission before hand then it should not, under planning rules, be counted.
If RoW’s idea is to build as many houses as possible on every bit of available brown field land then Wilmslow’s housing will become more and more compacted and the character of Wilmslow will be irrevocably changed anyway. Wilmslow is tightly surrounded by green belt land thanks to work done by Macclesfield Borough Council. This gives us a strong degree of control, but it means that when any significant new housing development is considered, there will always be a small degree of creep into the green belt. The choice becomes to overcrowd or to spread out a little. However, brown field sites on top of Adlington road, in my view, should mean that there is no need for 75 houses on the Royal London site. I will be writing to the planning inspectorate to say so. I encourage all Wilmslow residents who feel the same to do so.
The highlighted Safeguarded land is definitely safe until 2030, and there is absolutely no certainty that it will be built on after 2030. The fact is that by any normal measure, Wilmslow should have been allocated a much higher number houses in this plan than it has been. We cannot rely on Wilmslow being so fortunate in the future. Furthermore, for a plan to be acceptable to the planning inspectorate, it has to begin to look beyond its own 20 remit. Row has publicly praised the work done by Wilmslow Councillors in engaging with residents and in keeping the number to 400. 400 out of a total of 27,000 is no failure.
It is possible to argue with the total number of houses to be built in Cheshire East, but Cheshire East has to work to Government guidelines and practices, which are broadly in favour of development. Ignoring this would do more harm than good. There are a couple of nearby authorities who have attempted to rush through a plan and they are now in serious difficulty. I do not want Wilmslow/Cheshire East to be in the same position.
We say a no win situation because this is an emotional issue that polarises opinion and it is not possible to please everyone in Wilmslow, let alone all 370,000 people in Cheshire East. When I knock on doors in Wilmslow, there are at least as many people wondering how young people will get onto the housing ladder as there are those strongly opposed to any significant house building schemes. Wherever new houses go, there are those who will be affected. But as someone who grew up in a house built in the 70’s and now lives in house built in the 60’s, I know that new housing development is not a new thing, and it is necessary.
I doubt many will have had the will power to have read this far, but thank you if you have. Wilmslow is my home town and causing it harm is the last thing I want to do. I am backing this plan (with one or two exceptions) not because of who proposed it, but because it is a realistic and acceptable solution to a very difficult problem that has no one ‘right’ answer.
David Lewis
Thursday 19th September 2013 at 9:50 am
House completions plus full planning permissions granted in Wilmslow for the planning period so far amount to 193. If this rate of construction continues there will be 1200 more houses by 2030 far more than the 400 said to be needed. Even if no more houses were built or planning permissions granted from now until 2030 there is a need for only 207 new homes. So why does the Local Plan provide for 275 more houses an overprovision of 68? So why is it necessary to build 75 houses on greenbelt land at Royal London? And that is not all. The plan that is now being put forward is far worse for Wilmslow than the draft which went out to consultation earlier in the year. A proposal to add employment sites along the Wilmslow bypass plus a large area ‘safeguarded’ for development in the 20 year period post 2030 have been added. The only small concession is that the land at Alderley Road opposite Royal London is to remain in the greenbelt. What about the space that will become available at Alderley Park when Astra Zeneca move their research facility away? For the areas designated to be ‘safeguarded’, based on the numbers quoted in the earlier Wilmslow Vision, this will amount to some 1,000 further homes. Cheshire East say they have listened to the views of residents. How can that be when as a result of the consultation Wilmslow ends up with houses built on greenbelt land, more employment land assigned and a further 1,000 houses? This is not “Victories achieved for Wilmslow in a no-win situation" it is lose lose for Wilmslow and a failure of democracy!
Gary Barton
Thursday 19th September 2013 at 10:55 am
The space at AstraZeneca will be used by a series of new companies moving into the site. Also, AZ is not moving all its employees out of the site. New companies have already moved onto the site.

There is a big difference between planning permission being granted (often in principle, rather than specific plans) and houses being built. There is often significant lag between permission and building. If 200 houses are given permission for a site, it can often take many years for those houses to be built.

No one can say how many houses will be given permission or built in Wilmslow by 2030, but this plan will allow is to significantly control it. That is why it is a victory in the face of significant pressure to allow 1,300+ homes to be built.

Wilmslow residents were opposed the number of 1,300 houses, rightly saying it was too high. This plan has delivered a number 69% lower. That is no failure.
Rob Sawyer
Thursday 19th September 2013 at 11:10 am
The elephant in the room for Wilmslow is up to 2300 homes proposed just over the boundary - the euphemistically titled "Handforth East Village". The impact on transport networks as well as the loss green space will be felt by all in the wider area.
David Lewis
Thursday 19th September 2013 at 11:53 am
Even allowing for delays between full permission being granted (not just outline permission) there can be no real doubt that at the very least 400 new homes will be built in Wilmslow by 2030 so there is no need to allocate further sites and certainly not on greenbelt. 1,300 houses was never a real figure for Wilmslow; it was not supported by any evidence whatever.
How many small companies could be accommodated in Alderley Park in the space left by the AZ research facilities? How many have shown interest so far?
Mark Goldsmith
Thursday 19th September 2013 at 2:06 pm
Sounds like our local councillors are presenting us with what is called in negotiation terms as "the Russian Front" technique.

That is you have two options - one of which is unpalatable, while the other is downright nasty. You then reluctantly settle for the unpalatable one because, well it's better than the other. I think this has been their strategy all along. Aim high, come in low but claim it as a victory for your opponent, while you quietly pocket the difference.

However, the text books also say that the only response to this is to a firm "no thanks" to either option and insist on keeping the status quo or else you propose a third way.

We have a Tory run government (well almost), a Tory run Council and a Tory run Town Council. WTC want to blame CEC who then blames the government.

But, we all can see what the common denominator is and who to blame come the next election.



PS "Affordable Housing" in Wilmslow. Really? For how long will it be "affordable" and who says what is affordable or not? And when did anyone build anything in Wilmslow in the last decade that wasn't marketed as "Luxury....". So why will this be any different?

PPS Who actually runs our councils? Is it our elected members or is it Property Developers? Sounds like we should vote for our preferred Property Developer at the next elections as they seem to have more hold over our councils than we do.
Gary Barton
Thursday 19th September 2013 at 3:25 pm
We have just tried to be open about the process. The number of 1,300 was realistic and to deny that is not accurate. The market assessments processes are well practiced and accepted by planning authorities and that is what we have to work with third largest town in Cheshire East. Official estimates state that Cheshire East needs 27,000+ houses. Working under those parameters, as Cheshire East must, 1,300 is a far from ridiculous number to argue as proportionate for Wilmslow. These are the facts of the matter. If we ignore them we will be subject to judicial review from developers and then Wilmslow really will be swamped by large numbers of new houses. This is how it is. Cheshire East has a 5,500 word report detailing evidence and processes that will be submitted to the planning inspector. The report will be published.

WTC may or may not, in a couple of areas, disagree with CEC (an official response from WTC will be forthcoming, this is definitely not it, only my views), but does not mean that WTC ‘blames’ CEC. WTC knows the process. WTC was asked to try and aid consultation, and did so. RoW has publicly acknowledged this twice at WTC meetings.

If the property developer ran CEC, Wilmslow would not have been allocated as low a number as 400 houses. Personally, I don’t blame the Government either. I may not like CEC having to find places for 27,000 extra houses by 2030, but I am not expert enough on the national housing situation to be able to challenge the methods used and numbers produced. I am sure even the experts don’t agree. What I do know is that we have to work with it.

I don’t have numbers for Alderley Park available to me, but I know that discussions are going on with a number of companies that is likely in the next few years to lead to an increase in the number of people employed on the site.

Precise numbers of houses and the mix of affordable and ‘normally’ priced houses will be determined by individual applications. This plan does not deal with specific applications.
Roger Bagguley
Thursday 19th September 2013 at 8:47 pm
What Gary Barton is saying is what we all expected to hear from our conservative representatives - we have done really well given the reality of the real world we live in. In other words there is no real belief that the world we live in can ever be changed. However, if we have to build more houses in Wilmslow then it remains a fact that sufficient areas of brown site land exist to meet more than the immediate needs and without cramming them in as envisaged by Gary Barton. RoW has pointed this out time and time again, has discussed this in detail with CEC on more than one occasion and has visited possible sites with local councillors. The problem is that they are not prepared to step out of the box, to challenge Zombie procedures, to represent the wishes of their people. It is not good enough for our representatives to rejoice that only a small amount of the Greenbelt is to be lost - a loss is not a victory. If their brown before green pledge is pursued with any great rigour then in 2030 they will be justified in boasting a sense of real pride when not one patch of green will have been lost in meeting government and CEC targets for Wilmslow.
Gary Barton
Thursday 19th September 2013 at 11:06 pm
RoW's figures are inaccurate. Only 75 houses have so far been built in Wilmslow since April 1st 2010, a further 15 have received planning approval. Also, repeated surveys have failed to identify 'sufficient' brownfield sites. These are facts. We have no old mills or factories to build on. We have a tight ring of green belt around us. These are all facts. RoW has failed to identify any significant sites. Wilmslow is a town of large areas of low density housing. Does RoW want to change this? I am a resident of Wilmslow (for 29 years) and I don't.

Challenging the system is fine and fair, and in some ways I agree. But to ignore realities is to let Wilmslow down. That is the situation we are in. If the population is growing and the average number of people living in each house is falling, can we deny that there is a need for new housing? Do those of us who live in houses that were once new builds on green field decide that we will deny all others the opportunity to do the same? Yes brownfield development is better, but it cannot, does not meet identified needs.

I am a resident of Wilmslow, I want what is best for Wilmslow. Challenging the need for new houses is understandable, but no one has yet offered a realistic solution. 400 houses rather than 1,300 is a victory. It shows we have thought 'outside the box'.
Roger Bagguley
Friday 20th September 2013 at 9:59 pm
I will not be so careless as to say Gary Barton's figures are incorrect without doing my research but I do think his mathematical exercise is irrelevant to the problems we all face as our local councillors give in to accepting the future development of Wilmslow has to be on our treasured greenbelt. (Greenbelt is there for a reason) Everyone is quite clear the current strategy exercise is about identifying land on which to build houses in order to accommodate a growing population and to provide work for these people too. (RoW does not accept the two go together for Wilmslow) What RoW is doing is to prove that 400 houses required for Wilmslow in this current exercise can be built on brown sites, thus protecting the Greenbelt. In doing this they have worked closely with CEC Planning Department and at their last meeting in January both sides accepted 170 units have been identified on brown sites since April 1st 2010. (These are houses built + houses with planning permission + brown site opportunities that CEC accept will be developed within the period) Since then 23 planning applications have been approved by CEC, thus increasing the number of unit opportunities to date to 193. Not 400 yet but there are still 17years left in the period. Should this rate of windfall sites not be maintained then there are other facts to take into account: There are currently 30 registered applications for houses in Wilmslow awaiting a CEC decision and one for up to 30 houses in the pipeline.

It is not true to say that up to now RoW has failed to come up with any significant sites. RoW has identified a number of sites, has discussed these with CEC and has taken local councillors to visit some of them taking along a CEC planning officer to offer technical advice. The problem is that CEC has so far rejected a number of them offering a variety of reasons as to why they cannot be developed. Whilst our local councillors accept these reasons RoW certainly do not and will continue to fight to have these sites developed before any Greenbelt is destroyed: Some brown on the SHLAA is now green. Development of brown sites in the Greenbelt (they call it Pepper potting) will close down the countryside more than a large development on a Greenfield site. Some sites are not currently developable - so when are they? RoW will continue to deal in facts as they fight, mathematical facts and facts when CEC fail to follow government guidelines on how the current rush for developments should be conducted (Brown before green, conversion of empty office space etc.). It is agreed there are no empty factories to exploit but there are many empty offices blighting the town and it seems more in the pipeline.

Like Gary Barton I want Wilmslow to be a better place for people to live, a quality environment. I have lived in the town for much longer than Gary and cannot say it has been an ever increasingly pleasant place to be. Quite the contrary as the town centre has decayed and much of the housing built in the last century looks old and tired. I assume I live in a house built on a once green field but I do not believe I will do any future resident of Wilmslow a favour by standing by and accepting a repeat of past mistakes.
Gary Barton
Friday 20th September 2013 at 10:23 pm
As an addendum, most of the 75 houses built since April 1st 2010, were granted planning permission before that date - meaning that they do not count against the current plan's quota.
Stuart Redgard
Saturday 21st September 2013 at 3:58 am
@Gary Barton

You have stated in an earlier post that Wilmslow is the third largest town in Cheshire East.

Either you are mistaken or the information provided at section 2.2 of the following Cheshire East Document is incorrect.

CHESHIRE EAST LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - Wilmslow Snapshot Report

2.2 Wilmslow has a population of 22,530; the fourth largest of the towns in Cheshire East.

Please confirm which is correct. Your statement or the Cheshire East LDF document.

I have carried out my own analysis of new dwellings built in Wilmslow
independently of ROW. My figures are not the same as you state above. Of
course we could not be comparing like with like so would ask for the
opportunity to review each others findings at the earliest opportunity.
Kathryn Blackburn
Saturday 21st September 2013 at 2:15 pm
Dear Conservative Councillors,
Do not think for one second that the residents of Dean Row will give up on Adlington Road's green fields. You have to proceed over a number of hurdles yet. Ashall Town Planning completed the Cheshire East Local Plan Evidence Base for Wilmslow Town Strategy. Every Wilmslow Resident should read this document, it agrees with every sentiment expressed by RoW and with those of you who went online and submitted your views against the overdevelopment of Wilmslow during the consultation process on the Local Plan, Cheshire East ignored your views and that of Ashall their own planning agents. Councillors you have not thought 'outside the box' you have thought inside a section 108 agreement and the council tax raked in on 200 houses in the highest Band. I am disgusted with you all.
Steve Kennedy
Saturday 21st September 2013 at 8:05 pm
Gary, thanks for all your input, we should be delighted you have the time, energy, and sheer guts that you do and say what you do, publicly and openly. Many forget and criticise, and you guys have to just bite your lip, and carry on. You know you will be criticised and pulled apart with data by people who have nothing better to do. Personally, i'm ok with my town council, i know who you all are, i can approach you, you are visible, you try your best... Better the devil you know, as they say! Thank you for your efforts.
Gary Barton
Saturday 21st September 2013 at 10:03 pm
@Stuart - I know we have this debate before and there are a number of different metrics available for Wilmslow's population. I almost put that caveat in my statement and regret not doing so. The data I used was from the 2001 census - I don't know which boundaries were used for the census. But, the broader point about pro-rata rates of new house numbers vs number of residents relative to the rest of Cheshire East stands.

@Steve - thanks. We do try and do our best in the situations we find ourselves in and I am always happy to respond to questions or criticism. Lord Lawson once observed that politics works best when there is a healthy amount of disagreement and therefore debate. I agree with that sentiment fully.

@Kathryn - All Councils seek contributions from developers to the improvements in local infrastructure that are needed to cope with a growing population. Would RoW prefer developers made no contribution? It would be far easier for Councils if we could say 'no' to all growth and developments, but of course we can't. No amount of section 106 income makes up for the emotional turmoil caused. No Councillor does (or should) believe otherwise. To suggest that either CEC or any Councillor is financially motivated with regards to the local plan is plain wrong, at the very least. No organisation has identified sufficient brownfield sites to accommodate 400 new houses. I am just grateful that we have not had to accommodate 1,300 houses. Nor has any other group yet been able to suggest a workable alternative that would be more favourable. It's easy to say 'no'; a realistic alternative is much harder to achieve. The Conservatives are the only major political party to have acted on Wilmslow's behalf and we achieved a 69% reduction in the required number of houses in the local plan. We are also truly grateful for the passionate support we have had from so many residents and local various groups - it has made a difference.
Kathryn Blackburn
Sunday 22nd September 2013 at 10:59 am
Mr Barton I did not address my comment to you but to all of our elected conservative councillors whether they be WTC or CEC.
We have asked you to say No to developers on greenfield/green belt sites. We told you during the consultation process in our thousands all over Cheshire. We in Wilmslow are not alone it is the same in Mobberley,Knutsford, Macclesfield, Holmes Chapel,Prestbury and on and on. You are carrying out a flawed planning policy that in years to come if it is allowed to be carried out will change the face of Cheshire for ever.I realise that town councillors have little say in what the back office does within Cheshire East Council and that they in turn try to carry out the orders that policy dictates. But when it involves change for the worse to the area in which we live to the extent that this policy will, we have to do something to stop it from happening. The council elections are coming up be sure we shall start there.


One Site is easier and cheaper for the backroom boys at CEC to administer. Only 1 assessment to make mistakes in. One large s106 payment easier and cheaper to agree. The difference this time to that in the Lyme Green debacle is we are forwarned and we are forearmed.
Clive Rowland
Sunday 22nd September 2013 at 12:07 pm
Dear Gary,

If you do not agree that there is sufficent brownfield land to accommodate all of the 400 housing requirement, then, in your view, how many houses can be built upon brownfield sites in Wilmslow?

Thanks.
Richard Howard
Sunday 22nd September 2013 at 3:19 pm
This is total madness . I cannot believe they're allowing development on green field sites yet refusing planning permission to build homes on brown field sites within greenbelt.

I can't help thinking this another Lyme Green fiasco on a much bigger scale.
Roger Bagguley
Monday 23rd September 2013 at 10:38 am
To put the record straight I do think Gary Barton represents my ward well but on this issue he and his fellow councillors have it wrong. Using Gary's figure of 75 houses having been built in Wilmslow since April 2010 then, continuing at this rate, 500 houses are achievable on brown sites over the 20 year period to 2030. Thus, to represent the people of Wilmslow well all of our councillors should be shouting loud and clear:

No to 200 houses on Adlington Road;
No to 75 houses on land behind Royal London and to any commercial development;
No to developments between the railway line and the A34 bypass.

In addition they should be spelling out to CEC that changing the designation of parts of the Greenbelt to Safeguarded Land (White) is not acceptable. Thus, they should be opposed to proposed changes to land at Prestbury Road, land behind Upcast Lane, Cumber Lane and, I assume, Lindow Fold Drive. This manoeuvre on the part of Government and local councils is simply planning for a continuation of an ever increasing population, has no regard for sustainability or thought for the quality of life for our unborn generations.
Pete Taylor
Monday 23rd September 2013 at 9:22 pm
I've just had to remind myself what the role of a Local Councillor is... this from the LocalGov website:
The role of a local government councillor: Councils are made up of members – called Councillors - who together represent the people in their jurisdiction. Councillors are directly elected to represent the people ...

In order to represent the people, it is necessary to listen to what they are saying, rather than what Mark Prisk is saying.

Gary, your father recently stood for election to WTC; he did not listen to what the people were saying; as a result WTC now has a single independent voice, if the rest of you do not listen, I predict a huge change at the next local elections..

http://bit.ly/12zh16q
Stuart Redgard
Tuesday 24th September 2013 at 9:22 am
I too think Gary Barton works very hard as a WTC and CEC council and I personally appreciate the sacrifices he makes as a councillor. My concern is not with Gary, but with CEC as an institution. After several high profile issues of what I would call mall administration at CEC (Lyme Green, Bewilderwood and 2 others

http://bit.ly/15QSeN2
http://bit.ly/18UsThC

I no longer have confidence in CEC.

I am currently waiting for a ruling from the Information Commissioners Officer on a decision by CEC to refuse to respond to Freedom of Information requests and have also made an official complaint with regards to the decision to grant panning permission to Jones Homes to build new houses in the greenbelt http://bit.ly/18msIiW
Barbara Briggs
Wednesday 25th September 2013 at 9:56 am
Having lived in Wilmslow for more than 90 years, I have seen many changes, and Wilmslow is not going to stop changing.

But when it comes to arguments on interpretation of what should be facts that can affect future changes (e.g.What brownfield sites truly exist?) I ask:-

Have these been co-ordinated onto a map that all may see and thus be a less nebulous subject of discussion?

I am not likely to be greatly affected whatevever happens to Wilmslow, but it would be sad if such a pleasant place were unneccessarily damaged.
Stuart Redgard
Wednesday 25th September 2013 at 2:31 pm
@Philip Briggs

I am currently researching this and pan to do exactly as you suggest.