Campaigners who have been fighting to protect the Green Belt around Wilmslow say the Council has not listened to the views expressed by local residents and risks having the plan rejected on the grounds it is flawed.
Following the publication of Cheshire East Council's Local Plan Strategy document last week, Residents of Wilmslow (RoW) also feel that we urgently need an approved Local Plan because without one "predatory developers" will continue to target sites within the Green Belt.
David Lewis, of RoW said "Three rounds of consultation have delayed the plan a great deal but to what avail? The opinions expressed have been ignored almost completely. Cheshire East have gone through this long drawn out process which has delayed submitting a plan simply to be able to tick the box 'residents consulted' (but ignored – we know better!). But are our Councillors not elected to represent the views of the electorate? Does the Localism Act have any meaning at all?"
David added "Unfortunately there are a number of aspects to the submission core strategy that the government inspector may see as flawed. This could result in the plan in its present form being rejected, causing even further delays.
"Stockport and Greater Manchester may still object to Cheshire East's proposal to develop in the Green Belt almost right up to the northern boundary of the borough; there seems to be no proper assessment or provision for the infrastructure needs and the A34 and the new SEMMS road will simply not be adequate to cope with the extra traffic. These shortcomings need to be addressed urgently before the plan is submitted. To risk rejection and the consequent delay in getting an approved Local Plan in place will simply play into the hands of greedy developers who, motivated by profit, will get even bolder in the schemes and sites they put forward to the detriment of our countryside and the quality of all our lives.
"If Cheshire East had been less ambitious and not gone for a high growth strategy we would not have these problems. CEC is only required to find 22,000 homes, so why the 27,000 target? Is it for someone's own personal vanity or a stepping stone to political fulfilment?
"Building houses does not alone regenerate the economy. Should Government and local authorities fail to realise that economic growth and prosperity will not come about by excessive and unwarranted house building, the country will sooner rather than later revert to the economic crisis of 2007. To compound this, there is already oversupply of commercial developments, offices that have been empty long before the recession. Meanwhile the whole basis of working life is changing from office based employment to work-away status, thanks to IT. As for Wilmslow and Handforth, there is already evidence of excess supply of employment related buildings in the north of Cheshire East which has areas such as Manchester Airport City being established on its border to offer approximately 16,000 jobs."
David continued "Cheshire East's desire of 'employment led growth' consists of building far in excess of the homes required, 27,000 instead of 22,000, plus developing numerous sites under the guise of 'business parks' all without an inkling of where this employment will materialise. Meanwhile our Green Belt will have been destroyed for ever - all over the whim of a few misguided men's dreams of self-gratification and political glory.
"We are told by councillors Jones and Brown that the Council has listened to both developers and residents. The message we get, loud and clear, is that developers and land owners, e.g. Royal London, are certainly listened to but residents views, expressed over three sham public consultations, have been almost entirely ignored. The taxpaying public just didn't give the 'right' answers! They've listened but not heard!"
Meanwhile Wilmslow's Conservative Cheshire East councillors, have given the Local Plan Strategy document a "cautious welcome".
Gary Barton, Wesley Fitzgerald, Don Stockton, Rod Menlove and Paul Whiteley issued the following statement:
"As the Conservative Councillors for the Wilmslow wards on Cheshire East Council, we are giving the latest draft of the Local Plan a cautious welcome. We are pleased that some of our objections have been recognised and disappointed that others have not. We have to be pragmatic and, like all other councillors in Cheshire East, accept that there has to be compromise to achieve a sound Local Plan which will provide the best defence against unwanted development.
"A figure of 400 new houses over 20 years for Wilmslow successfully protects the essential character of our area. A combined effort between Wilmslow's Cheshire East Councillors, Wilmslow Town Council and local residents has ensured that initial projections of 1,300 houses for Wilmslow were rejected and our Green Belt land remains protected. We have also ensured that a Green Belt barrier will remain along the Airport Link Road to protect us from the spread of the Greater Manchester conurbation.
"We acknowledge that the Local Plan is required to consider development beyond 2030. However, the late notification of proposals for areas 'Safeguarded' for possible future development was an unwelcome and unhelpful surprise. The previous draft put an unreasonable burden on land near Cumber Lane/Lindow Moss and the Prestbury link road. We strongly opposed the amount of land proposed and our objections secured a 50% reduction of 'Safeguarded' land in Wilmslow and fairer distribution across our town. We remain opposed to any housing development at the Royal London site and we will continue to campaign for a further reduction in the amount of 'Safeguarded' land.
"The Local Plan is a critically important document that has to be sufficiently evidence based and robust to be acceptable to the Planning Inspector. Our efforts to ensure that the concerns of local residents have been heard has meant that this plan has gone through six separate periods of consultation – consultation that has resulted in significant redrafting of the Plan as it affects Wilmslow. We are grateful for the input from residents that helped us shape our arguments and to protect Wilmslow's character.
"We hope that the plan will be submitted to the Government by early summer. In the meantime, local residents and groups can continue to make representations concerning the Plan, all of which will be forwarded to the Planning Inspector."
The Local Plan Strategy document can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council website.
The Strategic Planning Board will discuss this document at their meeting on Wednesday, 26th February, and any recommendations made by the Board will considered at a meeting of the Full Council on Friday, 28th February.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Some people must have very short memories. Our Councillors were forced into listening to the concerns of local residents as a result of pressure from residents. As to the "significant redrafting" - there is little that has been done to address the concerns of residents, - rather this is a sell -out to developers so that the Council can get large sums of money. Will this money be used to improve infrastructure or disappear into the general pot of outrageous expenditure elsewhere in our unbalanced, poorly administered and badly governed County. We will all know how to vote next time.
All residents who live in and around Wilmslow whether they enjoy the amenity of greenery or not will within a short space of time receive a shocking blow to their house values some will be driven into negative equity most perhaps having bought a house rather than renting believing this to be a sound investment, indeed if not their retirement annuity, will wake up to find they cannot even sell it let alone make a profit. Cheshire East Council are using the
wrong policy in Jobs for Growth houses should be built on the back of local evidenced backed justified need. We will be inundated with commuters who do nothing but choke both our services and roads. I urge all of you to use your vote as one for change as we did in Dean Row.
Politics;as defined by Roget's Thesaurus: Use of intrigue,/strategy in obtaining power / control / Manipulation / Intrigue /....., . DEVIOUS !
There are a lot of good people here ROW, Some elected representatives and others trying to do the right thing .. applying common sense and rationale in a fair balanced way............... And this is the result ??.......... Ignored .... I read comments from ‘elected’ individuals and am surprised at attempts to justify perverse decisions against common sense and misuse of the English language.. Yes always meant Yes and No used to mean No .. I wonder what page of the book they are really on?
BUT WHAT CAN WE ACTUALLY DO ABOUT IT?
We apparently have a Council and an MP united against us. If Michael Jones believes that there is no point in refusing an application to build on safeguarded land because the decision will be reversed on Appeal by the Planning Inspector, he is not the man for us. And who is the Planning Inspector, to whom is he answerable and why does he apparently have such overwhelming power?
The Council receives a New Homes Bonus for each house built together with a levy from the developer.
What can we do about it, well the local elections and national and euro elections are all to be held within the next eighteen months or so. We can vote them out then and not before for any reason. And Mr Jones our Leader knows this. Perhaps he thinks that we will forget. I think we will not.
Note fox hunt ban "its what the majority want"!
Capital punishment - even if the majority want it politicians have decided it is no longer acceptable. This list is long!
Local and national government cannot expect the populus to constantly abide by decisions taken against the majority of opinion. Maybe we need a "christian spring". (Joke)
We do not need to provide local housing AND employment - one or the other MAY be necessary.
See my previous warnings about road congestion and house values in this area. Perhaps the greedy builders won't be so keen when they can't sell their boxes.
Consider your votes in the next 18 months carefully and research the candidates to ensure YOUR views are represented.
On the recent consultation the most objections by far were in relation to the Green Belt sites in Macclesfield. The Council’s response is that more housing is to be provided in the Green Belt. This condemns the run down industrial and mixed use areas in the town to a future of dereliction, as house builders will not build on brownfield sites, when green belt sites are available.
The message is clear, Cheshire East Council is determined to roll back the Green Belt, at all costs. At Lyme Green, on a site previously rejected for development, there were 3 representations of support from owners; and over 280 individual letters of objection. At Fence Ave, the letters of support came mainly from teachers at the school.
In Macclesfield the Green Belt sites have been chosen on the basis of land owned by the Council, or the Kings School. In Handforth, it’s solely on land owned by the Council.
The Local Plan suffers from the Council taking this subjective & narrow view of its responsibilities, which are clearly set out in the NPPF. These include an objective assessment of site options, and close working with adjoining LAs throughout the process. It is an Estates Plan, and not a Planning Plan!
Last minute attempts to paper over the cracks cannot conceal the serious deficiencies which characterise the Plan. These include errors, contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions, & outstanding matters to resolve.
Quite clearly the SPB will not be making any changes in the time between now & Friday; this could be considered to be the only consistent theme running throughout the whole process.
Site CS26, Royal London Wilmslow is one that should be removed. At the last submission to the then Planning Inspector regarding this site, reasons for it remaining in the Green Belt were accepted and they remain valid today.
Objections to CS26 are documented in Appendix C of the draft; these together with additional evidence will be placed before the Inspector and will be convincing. There are no exceptional circumstances that justify removal from the Green Belt of either the land to the east or to the west of Royal London House both of which to this day remain in active agricultural use.
There are three aspects of CS26 on which the plan will fail.
1. Proposed housing, to which Wilmslow Town Council and the Wilmslow CEC Councilors are objecting. The majority of respondents to the consultation process object to development of any kind.
2. Development of land for employment related use. The area of land proposed for this has, during the consultation period, been increased from 2Ha to 5Ha at the instigation of Royal London's agents and contrary to public opinion. There is already an over supply of office space in Wilmslow. Manchester Airport City and new sites at Stanley Green and others nearby will compete with office space in Wilmslow. An ever increasing use of the internet will reduce the future growth in demand for offices.
3. Building a hotel on the site. This proposal is a misjudgment. Within less than a mile, accessed from the same proposed highway, both the County and the Hardern Park Hotels lie derelict.
There is evidence in the proposals of too much influence by one party re site CS26. I urge CEC to look again at the objections and to act upon them. If there is a post mortem the electorate will be looking for someone to blame if the surgeon's advice goes unheeded.