Plans for 920 homes at Woodford passed by casting vote

by Lisa Reeves

Tuesday 5^th August 2014

Tue 5^th Aug 2014

Plans to build nearly 1000 homes at the former BAE systems site in Woodford have been approved by Stockport Borough Council and referred to the Secretary of State.

The application for 920 dwellings, which was described as the "single largest proposed predominantly residential, mixed use development which the borough has considered for many years", divided the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee and was passed by just a single vote at a meeting on Tuesday 29th July.

Six councillors voted in favour of a motion to grant the application and refer it to the Secretary of State, whilst six councillors voted against this motion leaving Cllr Lenny Grice, Chairman of the Planning and Highways, to exercise his casting vote.

Stockport Borough Council will now refer the application to Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Speaking after the vote, Cllr Lenny Grice said "It's gone equal, there are pluses and minuses on both sides and for those reasons I have gone to grant because I do believe we have control. This will now have to go to the Secretary of State, it could be called in by the Secretary of State or not, and they could make the final decision."

BAE Systems made the decision to cease operations at Woodford Aerodrome in March 2011. The site was sold to AVRO Heritage Ltd late in 2011, who subsequently formed a joint venture with Harrow Estates.

Proposals include a new primary school with the capacity for 210 pupils, a day nursery and creche, a public house, a care unit, business units for small scale employment opportunities, and shops including a small supermarket, restaurants and cafes. Harrow Estates has indicated that the scheme would be delivered over 9 year period, starting in 2015, with annual build rates of approximately 75 to 100 units.

The former aerodrome site as a whole is 205 hectares, approximately 122 hectares lie within Stockport with the remainder of the site lying in Cheshire East.

Tags:: Woodford Aerodrome

Comments

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

Chris Wigley

Tuesday 5^th August 2014 at 2:30 pm

...............and soon you will be able to walk from the new Handforth East to the Woodford development without seeing a blade of grass or even realising you have moved from one county to another!

Sandra Cox

Tuesday 5^th August 2014 at 3:53 pm

It will be easier and quicker to walk Chris than to drive.
Gridlock is on the horizon and soon we will lose the freedom to shop at will instead having to plan our trips around the times when it may be possible to find a parking space and not be crushed to death in the shops.

Desmond Williams

Tuesday 5^th August 2014 at 3:56 pm

This development at Woodford former airfield plus the Adlington Road development recently approved against strong objections made to Cheshire East will in spite of reassurances will cause severe congestion on roads leading to Wilmslow and Handforth.At peak times especially at the roundabout by the inn is already congested frankly the whole area will be gridlocked at peak times and generations to come will find it increasingly frustrating to live in this area and will if possible move elsewhere to the detriment of the local economy and facilities.I hope the local politicians realise the damage they inflicting on the local residents who will I hope react at the polls.

Sally Hoare

Tuesday 5^th August 2014 at 4:38 pm

At least it is a brownfield site rather than greenbelt.

Jon Williams

Tuesday 5^th August 2014 at 8:20 pm

And I will say to my grandchildren "I remember when all this was green fields"

Nick Jones

Tuesday 5^th August 2014 at 9:01 pm

What an ideal chance to build a much needed new secondary school for those locally currently oversubscribed, and maybe build Cllr Michael Jones much wanted travellers encampment right in the middle !.
Cant say I am looking forward to the gridlock.. the roads cant cope already particularly rush hour ....... One vote ??... well maybe it should have been reviewed to a more realistic number of houses , .. but no doubt the plans will change many times now it has been granted...after all this is a cash cow for developers and council ..... Im in favour of brownfield development, and thats a good thing ... but this is a significant number of properties..... and its not exactly brownfield is it ??

Oliver Romain

Tuesday 5^th August 2014 at 9:50 pm

A brownfield site with no jobs turned to much needed homes and business units. A good outcome. Hopefully the plans will include foot and cycle paths so residents can shop locally without using the car.

Simon Worthington

Wednesday 6^th August 2014 at 8:17 am

At last. The comments above reflect what I have posted many times over the last couple of years. I watched as a child as Bramhall expanded to meet Cheadle Hulme and all the green fields I played on were covered in little homogenous boxes for the proles. No new high school has been built for years and all the ones we have are full to the brim. Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme, Heald Green, the bypass, Handforth and Wilmslow are already at gridlock morning and late afternoon. The new airport development by the M56 junction will supply an enormous amount of traffic. We don't need any of this - there is no shortage of housing in this area and no shortage of jobs. The tram system will not come to those areas which are "affluent". The rush hour trains are full. Holmes Chapel is still a nice and convenient place along with the Congleton area. Time to plan your exit.
On a more contentious line - what will this do to house values. Push them down which is an unwritten policy. Over 3000 houses in total. £6million in annual council tax for our leaders to squander!

Oliver Romain

Wednesday 6^th August 2014 at 8:38 am

Simon, what are you more concerned about, houses or 'proles' spoiling your 'affluent' neighborhoods with their 'homogenous [sic] boxes'?
We can't preserve the country in aspic. People need somewhere to live. Appearing to look down your nose at the masses in their 'boxes' or complaining house prices will be affected will not win your argument.
There is likely to be more nature and wildlife in these homes and gardens than there was with the previous industrial use.

Ryan Dance

Wednesday 6^th August 2014 at 11:22 am

I find the comments on this website incredible........ a massive housing shortage in this country yet every single development proposal receives negative comments.

Lets just get on with it and get the houses built.... but that wont happen will it.... no, lets take it through another 15 reviews, thousands of pounds in legal / planning fees and then make the decision in 5 years time!

Unbelievable

Simon Worthington

Wednesday 6^th August 2014 at 1:06 pm

Reread my post. My comments reflect the attitude of our leaders and my comment about the tram system and affluent areas is not my opinion, it is that of those owning, running and planning the future of it and reflects their comment when asked if it would run to Hazel Grove which is seen as affluent.
Why the "sic" following homogenous - appears quite correct.
I am not looking "down my nose" merely commenting on the fact that building 3000 houses (most of which will be homogenous boxes for the workers if you prefer) is far from "preserving the country in aspic".
House prices are a national obsession and therefore reasonably commented on.
My main point was and is the gridlock which will be caused in the name of profit. Does anyone honestly think the "developers" etc have local residents interests in mind?

Sarah Lane

Wednesday 6^th August 2014 at 3:11 pm

Simon. I take it you have not visited Holmes Chapel or Congleton recently. Both areas are being flooded with new homes with no thought for roads, doctor, dentists or most importantly any new school places. The schools are full to the brim everywhere.

Simon Worthington

Wednesday 6^th August 2014 at 3:31 pm

True. I must be a bit behind with the developments in those two places. I did mean that they have some countryside left. I recently visited Newquay which is being inundated with housing estates and "employment areas" much to the bemusement of the locals who can't see a GP for days. No schools planned there either. As I have said before "no profit in schools". Reminds me of the fiasco when our council razed the school at summerfields and then were puzzled when people who bought all the new local houses asked where their kids would go to school. No need to ask why all the schools in most of the country are full!!!

DELETED ACCOUNT

Wednesday 6^th August 2014 at 3:48 pm

Oliver everyone accepts that people need somewhere to live, but the solution is not simply to build more and more houses. The last Macclesfield Local Plan before we became part of Cheshire East put forward several intiatives for providing homes, for example, using the upper floor of shops and converting former offices to flats. Both these solutions are common in London and in many parts of the world, because it is also a way of regenerating town centres. In Cheadle there are flats over the new Sainsburys on the high street. Rural England points out that part of the problem we have is that modern design of houses is poor. Regency Crescents provided high occupancy rates and they came with communal gardens. We have to stop thinking about three bedroomed box houses with minute gardens.

Simon Worthington

Friday 8^th August 2014 at 8:12 am

Spot on Jackie. Where is the infrastructure? Where are some 3000 people going to be working and how will they get there. Woodford provided some 2-3000 jobs when I was kid and the traffic jams morning and evening were long even in those days. The huge local housing estates (same old boxes) were pushed through because there were jobs locally. Bramhall more than trebled in size in less than 20 years and of the quoted 11,000 houses in the Wilmslow area how many have been built since building resumed in the 1950s. If the plan to turn Woodford into a film studio had proceeded it would have brought many jobs and huge kudos to the area. Our three main film studios (all around London obviously) are busier than Baghdad brickies and the film business is booming - but - not enough profit for Mr. Bamford and his cronies. If we need all these houses (which is not proven, it is a Government demand for their own ends) why do they have to be on greenbelt. Over 400,000 approved housing applications exist nationally but builders only want to build on greenbelt because of profit. We may mostly be NIMBYS but I can't see anything but detriment to the whole area with these two (the ludicrously named "Handforth settlement" included) enormous plans. Most of Woodford is greenery as aerial maps will show.

Geoff Ferguson

Friday 8^th August 2014 at 1:14 pm

I would be surprised if the reality matches the artists impression, expect an amendment to build additional properties on that green area at the front of the picture.

Common sense should prevail here,yes I know we are talking about a council, quite simply the infrastructure should be in place before any more houses area added to this area but is that ever going to happen?

DELETED ACCOUNT

Saturday 9^th August 2014 at 5:38 pm

At least from the photo there aren't cul de sac after cul de sac, ranks of mock tudor housing and very narrow roads.

Fred Rayers

Sunday 10^th August 2014 at 8:40 pm

I would be very interested to know if the drawing is an accurate representation of how the design. The gaps between houses and size of gardens seem better than most new estates - but is this really the case (and does it apply to the whole site, or only the bits at the front of the picture) or is it a deliberate attempt to mislead?

Raymond Acton

Monday 11^th August 2014 at 12:10 pm

Fred! How about 'Serving suggestion only'?

Jamie Ross

Tuesday 12^th August 2014 at 8:50 pm

I think we should have a meeting to discuss issues that are brought to Wilmslow.co.uk website....i think it would be fun for a non aggressive debste on weekly issues. Who's up for that?? ;-)