Last minute revision for Adlington Road development

ADLINGTONRD

Jones Homes has submitted a second revision of its controversial plan for a residential development off Adlington Road, which shows the number of dwellings has been increased from 193 to 204.

One day after the consultation period for the Adlington Road plans ended, the Principal Planning Officer wrote to some Wilmslow residents informing them that a further plan for the site had been received.

Paul Wakefield wrote "The amendments are relatively minor but do have the effect of increasing dwelling numbers to 204. Given the consultation that has previously taken place on this proposal and comments previously submitted, it is not considered that it will raise any issues. However, if you would like to make further comments, relating to this revised site plan, they must be submitted using our online form."

Those wishing to submit comments must do so by noon on Friday, 23rd May, giving residents and councillors four and a half working days in which to comment.

Manuel Golding, of Residents of Wilmslow (RoW) commented "The letter called this a "relatively minor" amendment; clearly this is not how residents see this!. It is not within Cheshire East's remit as an elected body to make such prejudicial comments on the revised Jones' plans."

Wilmslow Town Council's planning committee discussed the previous submission at their meeting last week, where they decided to recommend it for refusal.

Their response stated "The Committee believe that the application is premature being put forward at a time when school, medical and road facilities are inadequate to facilitate such a development and at a time when the adoption of new Cheshire East Local Plan could be some way off. The timing brings into question the legality of the Planning Authority considering this application, as recently highlighted by Mr David Manley QC acting on behalf of the Residents of Wilmslow Group.

"The application fails to demonstrate any regard for the CEC policy of prioritising brownfield space first for development, is presented before an adequate case has been put forward to support the need for these houses and contravenes GC7 of the existing Local Plan in presuming development on a safeguarded site. The application fails to acknowledge the proposed Woodford development in its traffic survey.

"The Planning Committee feel that the application represents a significant overdevelopment of the site which is out of keeping with surrounding properties and that the resultant proximity to existing boundaries is overbearing in many cases. Any future application should tackle this issue by considering layout and housing type in tackling this overbearing issue with regard to neighbouring properties.

"The Planning Committee feel that the application fails to tackle effectively the issues of access to and from the site and express significant concerns as to the capacity of Adlington Road in particular in being able to adequately handle further traffic flow."

Speaking at the Town Council meeting on Monday, 19th May, Cllr Christopher Dodson said "We were surprised to see that they had submitted a revised site plan which increases the number of houses to 204. Though the planning committee has not had the chance to discuss it, my own view is that the objections we raised previously still apply and planning permission should be refused for those reasons."

Cllr Phil Enstone added "I do not believe that Cheshire East are following due process. The process is that if there is a change to the application then we should receive it again. Somebody must have known that it was coming up infront of Town Council last week, we had all the residents here. Now this next proposal is for 204 houses and I've already had one resident absolutely appalled that in this new plan there is another house backing on to her property which completely changes her outlook at the back of her house.

"Now she should have every right to comment on that and Paul Wakefield has not changed the length of time for this consultation to come to a conclusion. Either the process should be extended to add another consultation or we should be given the time to reply to what we've actually seen. I just don't think it is right what people are doing."

This planning application, reference 14/0007M, will be considered at a meeting of the Strategic Planning Board on Wednesday 28th May. The meeting will take place at Macclesfield Town Hall, starting at 10.30am.

The revised plans can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council website by searching for planning application 14/0007M.

Tags:
Adlington Road, Jones Homes, Planning Applications, Residents of Wilmslow
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

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

Julian Barlow
Tuesday 20th May 2014 at 12:37 pm
Try making a "relatively minor" amendment to your own home and see if the planning committee are happy to wave it through completely unchallenged. They'd have a bloke with a clip board and a hi-viz vest knocking at your door before you can say brown paper envelope.
DELETED ACCOUNT
Tuesday 20th May 2014 at 3:01 pm
These "relatively minor" admendments are in fact significant. The number of dwellings has increased, and the configuration of houses and garages has changed in several areas. The situation has been made worse by the fact that documents from the developers are still being put on the web- site, even though they are dated as having been received earlier. Pity the poor people who might return from holiday to find that in one week the council has agreed to a new house behind their property or car parking spaces which they knew nothing about. Such has become the nature of Cheshire East.
Fraser Richardson
Tuesday 20th May 2014 at 3:10 pm
Extract from comments I have emailed to the planning dept today:

The second revision submitted the day after comments from the consultation period ended

I would like to comment firstly on the process, I received a letter from the Principle Planning Officer - Paul Wakefield, giving notice that the applicant had submitted a second revision to its application for developing the Adlington Road site. I thought that this was extraordinary enough from the applicants point of view however I was surprised by the content of the letter from the Principle Planning Officer. Surely it cannot of escaped him that this application is controversial and that anyone in his position should choose their words carefully and be seen to be impartial and not give opinion but simply state the facts. Well in my view he fell short of that standard stating the the effects of this revision are "relatively minor”. To the majority of local people a revision exceeding the original level of dwellings is not minor but a major issue. And the timescale given to allow the public to comment on is wholly insufficient especially as the public may wish to comment on the process not just the plans as I do. I suspect if sufficient time was allocated the planning department would receive significant number of complaints about how this latest revision has been communicated and handled. And if there is a complaint process it should be undertaken immediately.

As regards the second revision, I would reiterate my family and I’s objection to the development. Furthermore, I’m astonished by the applicant’s thought process behind the revisions. Initially they submit plans for 203 dwellings, and the overwhelming commentary from the public was against the development on various issues, safeguarded land, local plan yet to be agreed, traffic related issues, environmental, build density, infrastructure etc…. And so given the raft of issues they faced the applicant decided (No doubt acting in its best interest) to submit revised plans of 193 dwellings in an attempt to tick off the objections raised and where that was not possible to offer monetary compensation (section 106) to mitigate those issues such as the one off payment re eduction etc…. So the question we have to ask now is why revert back to more dwellings? Clearly the applicant felt that the issues the public raised were valid enough to revise their plans which when you think about it is great as the applicant has added their own credibility and weight to that of the objections by local people.

This obvious lack of coherent strategy by the applicant would lead me to question their professionalism or unless it means that they can see the writing on the wall and they are fairly confident that the application is likely to fail and they will have to take it to appeal. So if they have to take it to appeal they might as well take 204 dwellings to appeal as 193 ? Or am I just being too cynical?

In reality, this revision is equivalent of putting two fingers up to local people who have validly taken the time and effort to raise their concerns of this proposed development, and I hope that this revision will spur on more people to give their comments on this plan however conveniently for the planning department the window of opportunity for local people to comment is diminishing fast.

Please do comment ASAP before the deadline of noon on Friday 23rd May and make a difference.

Thank you
Kathryn Blackburn
Tuesday 20th May 2014 at 4:02 pm
Residents are having continual difficulties whilst endeavouring to object to this third revision by Jones Homes. Please be aware everyone that the online submit button will only accept comment if every asterisked box is filled in.
Residents without computers or with little knowledge of how to work one have been given no alternative method to object to this third revision. The dictum came from Paul Wakefield Planning Case Officer that we could not email our comment but that we must use the planning website thereby disenfranchising many elderly residents from airing their democratic rights. This is in direct conflict with the Equality and Inclusion Policy (2012) and Cheshire East Council's statutory duty under the Equalities Act (2010).
Further we are all given less than 5 working days in which to object to a revision that in effect has taken us back to the beginning but with a higher density still of 204 houses. Many of us will have our lives altered irrevocably by this third alteration yet Mr Wakefield does not consider that this revision raises any new issues. May I assure him these revisions do matter to the residents surrounding this proposed site and we should be given the opportunity to tell you so by any and all methods at our disposal as befits our age and ability.
Terry Roeves
Tuesday 20th May 2014 at 4:20 pm
Paul Wakefield the planning case officer for 14/0007M says that he will be recommending approval of the plan for 204 dwellings. The bulldozers move ever closer to Adlington Rd.
Do CEC listen to us council tax payers? Do they listen to the builder? Answer both with a simple yes or no. Congratulations! You scored 100%
There is still time to send in objections. I hope that you have more luck than Wilmslow Town Council had.
DELETED ACCOUNT
Tuesday 20th May 2014 at 7:00 pm
It is clear that CEC doesn't want to listen. It doesn't matter that this development does not meet all the guidelines in respect of open space - will have a cash payment instead says Cheshire East. It doesn't matter that some houses are too close to each other - will take a cash payment instead says Cheshire East.etc etc. These days this is called "mitigation" or a commuted sum. All in all Cheshire East might just as well put large signs up in Sandbach and Macclesfield saying, "sold to the highest bidder"
Manuel Golding
Tuesday 20th May 2014 at 8:16 pm
Let us not forget that Residents of Wilmslow has received two (2) Advice briefs from our eminent planning Q.C. In both documents, Advice 1 & Advice 2, he clearly gives his learned opinion that the Council, its Special Planning Board and indeed its "officers" will be acting illegally should the Adlington Road site be given planning permission prior to the new Local Plan being given approval at a future EIP. As our Q.C. clearly states, copies have been sent to the Council's officers and councillors, that should the Council make a "significant breach of Development Planning policy in this case and, therefore, any grant would be prima facie unlawful".
There you have it councillors!
Should the Council and its apparatchiks, councillors or others, proceed to give such permission, Residents of Wilmslow is resolved to proceed to a Judicial Review, with all the attendant consequences for this council. Oh by the way, Cheshire East Council does have a rather dubious and tatterd reputation - Lyme Green, Tatton Park, Information Commissioner, Local Government Ombudsman - need I go on?
I'm reminded of Clint Eastwoods phrase "Go on %%%%, make my (our) day" in court!
Throughout the whole Local Plan process, the Council has disregarded the views of residents, consistently. Cllr. Jones was delighted to tell RoW at a recent meeting, with George Osborne MP, that CE had "seven public consultations". But he & the Council DID NOT LISTEN to residents, only to greedy, uncaring (towards local communities) developers.
Paul Wakefield's arrogant attitude is just typical of this council. He has the gall to tell us that Jones' new changes are "minor". How dare he? And then he follows this by issuing a one-eyed, totally biased report in favour of "approval", dismissing local's concerns, and without full reports on various issues concerning this site. Has he taken legal advice on RoWs possible, now probable, Judicial Review? If so, from whom? He doesn't say so, just dismissing it as a mere figment. In total his report is a travesty, highly unprofessional, so much so he should hide his head in shame. Is this a case of maladministration? Is it...........?
It is now time for that showdown - I can see Clint riding forth out of the sun.
Stuart Redgard
Tuesday 20th May 2014 at 9:39 pm
The planning officers report is now available to view online:

http://bit.ly/TrHRfW

It recommends the committee APPROVE the application subject to conditions and s106 agreement for 193 dwellings (not 204 which the most recently submitted drawings show).

What first surprised me is that it has been published only two working days after the end of the consultation period ended.
Stuart Redgard
Tuesday 20th May 2014 at 10:18 pm
Correction to my earlier comment.

Although the report states that the proposal is for 193 dwellings it then goes on to talk about 204 dwellings. I assume it is therefore based on the revised scheme for 204 dwellings.
Dave Cash
Tuesday 20th May 2014 at 11:12 pm
Surely, any revisions to the Plan, submitted by the developers, at this late stage, should trigger an extension to the public consultation period or require a new full statutory Public consultation period?
Stuart Redgard
Wednesday 21st May 2014 at 6:13 am
To register to speak at the meeting email



or contact Sarah Baxter of CEC on 01270 686462 before 12 noon on Tuesday 27th May 2014
DELETED ACCOUNT
Wednesday 21st May 2014 at 7:55 am
So CEC sent off their Submission Plan to the Secretary of State yesterday in which they have to prove they have a 5 year Land Supply for housing. At the same time residents are told you have only until Friday lunchtime to submit comments. A cynic might suggest that they want to give permission to this proposed development regardless, - because they are uncertain that the Land Plan will be accepted and it would boost their position if they could say that planning permission had been granted. Seems to me that the developer is plainly in a position to dominate decisions, hence, it doesn't matter that there is not the "high quality design" demanded by CEC,. neither does it matter that the minimum distance from houses is not met in a number of instances. So what does Wilmslow get from this development? - "bog standard" design complete with a number of "back to back" terraced houses. It is hard to imagine a more comprehensive act of disregard for the character of the neighbourhood and the feelings of its residents.
Tom West
Wednesday 21st May 2014 at 11:54 am
Building on Adlington Rd is, as has already been mentioned LOTS OF TIMES, a completely pointless exercise.

1) The houses are too far from central wilmslow to be within walking distance. this means that wilmslow won't prosper from the development.

2) Adlington Rd is a 40mph limit area, along with Dean Row Rd. With this new development, these roads would no doubt be reduced to 30mph. this is un-neccessary, and would only serve to increase the "speeding ticket" fund, and waste others time.

3) this is beautiful natural ground that they want to build on. i have spent my life walking around these fields and have fond memories.

4) they plan on filling some of the ponds on the land to build on. I wonder where this water, and any other that may land on it, would go? we've all seen the devestation of building on flood-plains, either first hand or on the news, and we don't want it to happen here either.

5) These houses will provide shelter for up to 1000 people. the local medical centers are full and are not accepting new entries. the same goes for local schools that are already over-subscribed.

i can't see how we can ever increase the capacity of wilmslows housing when we can barely provide for the residents already here.
Fraser Richardson
Wednesday 21st May 2014 at 12:17 pm
Thanks Stuart for posting the link to the planning officers report. After reading the 37 pages it would seem that the answer to my question "Why would the developers would revert back to 204 dwellings?" It is so the Planning Officer can recommend to the committee to Approve this development as the percentage of affordable housing has risen from 25% to 30%. Which just hits the Minimum requirement for sites such as this one. How convenient!

I have to say that it appears to me that the planning department are assisting the developers with their plans so that the planning department can recommend approval. My experience of planning departments is far from this experience sadly. So it does beg the question one rule for large developer another for the ordinary guy in the street?

Also I would like to agree with Stuart that it is rather surprising that this 37 page report was issued 2 days after the consultation period, looks to me like the response was predetermined no matter what comments were received. And if further evidence of this is required this report has been issued prior to the consultation period granted by the planning officer on the second revision has ended!?!

I also note the absence in the report of the criticism levelled at CEC from Stockport MBC regarding the release of Green Belt and by inference Safeguarded sites to meet future development needs has not been adequately demonstrated because a targeted exercise has not taken place to establish whether owners of land outside of the Green Belt would be interested in developing it and, therefore, no work has been undertaken to establish whether development of any such land might be deliverable.

Quite frankly I'm astonished how this application has been handled by the planning department and I think some review of its operation should be a priority for those who have the responsibility to oversee this public sector department
Derek Stevens
Wednesday 21st May 2014 at 12:20 pm
Tom
It's not a pointless exercise as far as Jones Homes are concerned.
They are going to make lots of money and by giving a sweetener to the council they will consider job done, build their houses and move on to the next project with no consideration to anyone or anything effected by the development
Simon Worthington
Wednesday 21st May 2014 at 12:49 pm
I have just read the objection by the applicant to the "development" on Grove Avenue - pots and kettles. There will be some difficulty shifting these houses as the child residents will have no schools to attend and I hope the doctors will make it clear they are full. I am also unclear how payments to a council escape the recent bribery act.
Mark Goldsmith
Wednesday 21st May 2014 at 12:58 pm
This stinks to high heaven.

Paul Wakefield seems hell bent on pushing this through regardless to the Safeguarded land or public opinion. I received a letter from him giving me less than a week to comment on these "minor changes". With some people on holiday, it doubtless keeps complaints down.

So why the rush?

It's not like their is a fixed deadline for the building of these houses. Therefore, Mr Wakefield's actions in this matter do seem highly suspicious.

PS it is voting day tomorrow - perhaps if the Cheshire Tories get crushed in these, they might wake up and realize they can't take our vote for granted.
DELETED ACCOUNT
Wednesday 21st May 2014 at 4:01 pm
What amazes me in Paul Wakefield's report is the statement, "The proposed development will generate a total of 36 primary aged pupils and 26 secondary age pupils" . Is there a sperm count problem in cheshire east that so few children are anticipated!
Pete Taylor
Wednesday 21st May 2014 at 6:40 pm
One rule for "them" and another for "the rest of us".

http://dailym.ai/1qVB1he

As the old song said "It's the rich wot gets the pleasure and the poor wot gets the blame".

This whole affair stinks, and I will remind Micheal Jones what he said to a packed hall in Dean Row: "Those Adlington Road fields will never be built on".

Perhaps a whopping protest vote tomorrow might make CEC take notice?
Martin Lewis
Thursday 22nd May 2014 at 5:26 am
One gets the impression that Cheshire East Planners are just merely going through the due process of placing submissions on the planning portal and sending out statutory letters without a thought for this community!
How can CEC justify this 5% increase in the social housing notified by Jones Homes after the consultancy ended and after the Wilmslow Town Council Planning Committee had given their ruling on what now proves to be out of date plans. Outrageous!
And how will you be able to evaluate the responses responsibly in the five days between the 25th May at end of this further extended 'consultancy' and the SPB meeting on the 28th May?
This procedure does not even come close to 'best practice' and I am incandescent with rage!
It seems to me that our County Planners and Councillors are leaning very much towards the developers and amazingly in this instance when our legal adviser, David Manley QC, has ruled and advised that this particular application is premature, illegal and a sound candidate for a Judicial Review!
I really fear that democracy is illusionary in Cheshire East currently and that's a great shame for everyone in this half of the County and in Wilmslow!
Why not join the 'Residents of Wilmslow' and 'Friends of Dean Row' this Friday 23rd May at 10.00 am when members of the Cheshire East's Strategic Planning Board come to Brown's Lane to a site visit at this Adlington Road development they are to vote on next Wednesday.
They will be entering the site just past the Dean Row Village Hall on Browns Lane and you are all welcome!
Martin Lewis FoDR & RoW
DELETED ACCOUNT
Thursday 22nd May 2014 at 3:49 pm
Design,Access and Supporting statement gone on CEc's website this afternoon - basically Jones Homes have got a second legal opinion to try and bolster their case. Section 2.14(ii) is a blatant threat to councillors. Interesting too that this advice refers to "amendment" but fails to mention that as he puts it, the self-styled Residents of Wilmslow were only given four and a half days to respond. His advice dated 16th May - the final day of the last round for comments.

Meanwhile, my views sent yesterday have still not gone on. I wonder how many other people's have not been appeared yet.
Desmond Williams
Friday 23rd May 2014 at 1:02 pm
Having some experience of planning procedures and developers the process adopted by Cheshire East which is flawed as pointed out by others leads one to believe that there is a very close association between officers and possible Councillors and the developer. Amendments to the scheme possibly on advice from those within the Council indicate a desire to see the development go ahead thereby generating income from rates and meeting the governments targets for housing.The effect of this development on traffic build up on Adlington Rd and the immediate effect on some roads in the vicinity despite views from the Council will be severe at peak times.The building on this "lung" of open space which adds a great deal to the local environment will be to urbanise an otherwise attractive open space.Should East Cheshire Councillors not realise the scale of local community anger and frustration then they must appreciate that this will not be forgotten.
Kathryn Blackburn
Friday 23rd May 2014 at 5:22 pm
Trafford are not as p....d as we are George and Michael. Only 12 months to go. Better listen up. No to greenfield building in Cheshire.
DELETED ACCOUNT
Friday 23rd May 2014 at 6:18 pm
More site plans gone on the website today. Put on the website again at the end of the working day and an accompanying letter to say that specific concerns of houses have been taken into account. So at the end of the 4.5 day consultation period the developer adjusts them again . One rule for them and another for residents.
Kathryn Blackburn
Monday 26th May 2014 at 11:01 am
UKIP top the poll in Cheshire West and Chester.

UKIP 2nd to Conservatives in Cheshire East - vote share says it all though folks : UKIP 27,940 votes (share 31.17%) Cons 30,893 votes (33.36%).

Say goodbye Michael Jones you are on borrowed time.
Mr Osborne just time to stop the rot.

NO to building on Cheshire Fields. Brownfield first.