Residents of Wilmslow put candidate forward for Town Council

RoW - Photo  David Jefferay Oct 14land

A representative of the campaign group Residents of Wilmslow has been nominated as a candidate for Wilmslow Town Council.

If more than one candidate is nominated then Wilmslow resident David Jefferay will stand for election as a Residents of Wilmslow candidate in the forthcoming by-election for the vacant Wilmslow East Ward seat, on Thursday 13th November.

Although we have not received confirmation as yet, we would expect the Conservatives to put forward a candidate for the Wilmslow East seat, which became vacant following the passing away of Sue Menlove in August.

Should only a single candidate be nominated, then David will be elected unopposed.

David Jefferay has lived in Wilmslow the majority of his life and his family has lived in what is now the Wilmslow East ward since the 1930s. He attended Lindow Primary School and Wilmslow High School before joining AstraZeneca (then ICI) Pharmaceuticals in Macclesfield as an apprentice.

If elected, David will join fellow Resident of Wilmslow Town Councillor, Philip Enstone, who has represented Dean Row since 2013 and became the first non-Conservative member of Wilmslow Town Council.

David believes passionately in preserving the town's greenbelt and strongly opposes proposed development on the greenbelt at Butterfly Bank (Welton Oaks) and the potential development of houses, commercial offices and a hotel on the Royal London greenbelt site, in the Wilmslow East ward.

David commented "With more than 175000 square feet of empty office space in Wilmslow, I feel that some of these empty properties should be used to satisfy commercial need rather than build more and some should be converted to living accommodation.

"I strongly believe Cheshire East Council must make full use of the Residents of Wilmslow's brownfield research in the town which highlights potential sites for further development without the need for greenbelt destruction and I strongly disagree with Wilmslow Town Council's decision to agree to further commercial development on Royal London's green belt."

During his career, David left the area to study mechanical engineering at the University of Nottingham and subsequently moved around the UK working as a nuclear engineer. He returned to Wilmslow in 2010 and now works as a consultant engineer and runs a small business providing training courses to the nuclear industry.

In his spare time, David enjoys walking and is a volunteer for the Wilmslow Animal Sanctuary. He lives on Knutsford Road with his partner Louise and their two cats Poppy and Chloe.

If more than one candidate is nominated then an election will be held on Thursday 13th November between 7am and 10pm.

Anyone wishing to stand as a candidate must deliver nomination papers to the Returning Officer, Elections Office, Westfields, Middlewich Road, Sandbach, Cheshire, CW11 IHZ no later than 4pm on Friday 17th October.

Tags:
By-election, David Jefferay, Elections, Residents of Wilmslow, Wilmslow Town Council
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

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

Chris Wigley
Tuesday 7th October 2014 at 1:55 pm
Good luck David, I hope you break the stragglehold on Wilmslow Town Council.
Sandra Cox
Tuesday 7th October 2014 at 3:00 pm
This is such good news.
Not only does David wish to protect us from over-development but the fact that he is also a committed animal-lover is the icing on the cake.
Let us hope there is no need for an election, but if there is, we shall be voting for you David.
DELETED ACCOUNT
Tuesday 7th October 2014 at 3:27 pm
This sounds exactly like the sort of person who is needed. 1) He is local 2) He loves the town and the greenfields which surround it 3) His background is in technical things- so no wool pulled over his eyes and 4) He is an animal lover. I hope the electorate get behind him and show CE that we will not be bullied.
Nick Jones
Tuesday 7th October 2014 at 4:29 pm
Fully agree with comments above, David you have my support....
The benefit of independence was demonstrated once before here by Martin Bell..and long may it continue to the benefit of common sense and clarity. Good Luck
David Jefferay
Tuesday 7th October 2014 at 10:39 pm
Thank you very much, folks, for the positive comments and words of encouragement. Really appreciated.
Barry Buxton
Wednesday 8th October 2014 at 12:13 pm
Another ostrich/nimby living in the forlorn hope that the economics of the real world won't affect Wilmslow!
Manuel Golding
Wednesday 8th October 2014 at 2:58 pm
In answer to Mr. Buxton's "ostrich/nimby" jibe.
First, those throwing out jibes on whatever subject, always demonstrate a complete lack of balanced understanding of the particular situation. Negates putting forward a worthwhile, constructive argument to demonstrate a knowledge & appreciation of the question to hand.
Second, Mr Buxton and the wolf pack of developers hovering around with snarling jaws to devour any green field they may see, may like to read the latest Press Release from the Department gor Communities & Local Government, below, in full and headed - Councils must protect our precious green belt land. It continues -
From:
Department for Communities and Local Government, Brandon Lewis MP and The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP
First published:
4 October 2014
Last updated:
6 October 2014, see all updates
Part of:
Improving the energy efficiency of buildings and using planning to protect the environment, Climate change, Environment and Planning and building
Ministers have underlined the government’s commitment to protect the green belt from development.

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis said that thousands of brownfield sites are available for development, and should be prioritised.
New guidance, published on Monday 6 October, reaffirms how councils should use their Local Plan, drawing on protections in the National Planning Policy Framework, to safeguard their local area against urban sprawl, and protect the green lungs around towns and cities.
The guidance explains that, once established, green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional cases, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.
It also states that housing need – including for traveller sites – does not justify the harm done to the green belt by inappropriate development.
Today’s (4 October 2014) measures will reinforce the action taken by the government since 2010 to protect the green belt. This includes:
• abolishing the previous administration’s top-down regional strategies
• selling surplus brownfield land for redevelopment
• introducing more flexible planning rights so empty and underused buildings can be brought back into productive use
Local Plans are now at the heart of the reformed, democratic planning system, so councils can decide where development should and shouldn’t go in consultation with local people.
Eric Pickles said:
This government has been very clear that when planning for new buildings, protecting our precious green belt must be paramount. Local people don’t want to lose their countryside to urban sprawl, or see the vital green lungs around their towns and cities to unnecessary development.
Today’s guidance will ensure councils can meet their housing needs by prioritising brownfield sites, and fortify the green belt in their area.
Brandon Lewis said:
We have put Local Plans at the heart of the reformed, planning system, so councils and local people can now decide where development should and shouldn’t go.
Support for new housing is growing, because communities welcome development if it is built in the right place and does not ignore their needs. That’s why 230,000 planning permissions were granted by councils in the last year alone, while the most recent official statistics show that green belt development is at its lowest rate since modern records began in 1989.
Councils should consider how they will protect and preserve important sites in their area, especially green belt sites. Other considerations include:
• sites of special scientific interest
• areas of outstanding natural beauty
• heritage coastline
• national parks and the Broads
Further information
The guidance published on Monday 6 October includes the following questions:
Do housing and economic needs override constraints on the use of land, such as green belt?
The National Planning Policy Framework should be read as a whole: need alone is not the only factor to be considered when drawing up a Local Plan.
The Framework is clear that local planning authorities should, through their Local Plans, meet objectively assessed needs unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. Such policies include those relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives, and/or designated as sites of special scientific interest; land designated as green belt, local green space, an area of outstanding natural beauty, heritage coast or within a national park or the Broads; designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.
The Framework makes clear that, once established, green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.

As you will read Mr. Buxton, it is not the "ostrich/nimbys", as you so speedily concluded. May I respectfully suggest you read, know & understand your subject before firing off your childish insults. RoW has consistently lobbied Cheshire East Council to tabulate all the brownfield sites in not only Wilmslow but elsewhere around the old Macc B.C. It just didn't wish to do that, preferring to side with the avaricious developers & landowners targeting green belt & green fields. Why? Because, in the words of Councillor Michael Jones and backed up by numerous Conservative councillors, developers prefer "shovel ready" green sites; brownfields, we have consistently being told, are "too expensive". Tough!! That's the nature of business, sometimes it is tough.
There are plenty of brown sites, plus windfalls, within Wilmslow to easily achieve the 400 new dwellings from 2010 to 2030 - we are over half way there in just 4 years!
David Jefferay
Wednesday 8th October 2014 at 5:15 pm
Hi Barry

I’m guessing that you are referring to the greenbelt issue?
Having looked at the data put forward by both sides of the argument as part of the Local Plan consultation process, it’s clear in my mind that we have plenty of brownfield sites in the area that can be developed to achieve the required number of houses (the correctness of the postulated demand for residential new-builds over the next 15 years or so being an argument for another day). At some point in the future if we have used up the brownfield sites, empty houses and empty office space and we still have a “housing shortage”, then the balance of the arguments may be tipped in favour of releasing some greenbelt but that is not where we are now (or, indeed, where we are likely to be at any point over the period considered by the local plan).

It’s probably worth pointing out that I’m not “anti-developers”, naive or an ostrich... what is not mentioned in the article above is that I am also a property investor and I am therefore very aware of the real-life economics of property development. I understand that the Jones’ homes of the world won’t make as much money because of the economies of scale of building vast numbers of houses on a nice green fields compared to building two or three houses here and there on previously developed land but I’m sure they’ll survive or possibly even do very well out of tax allowances/incentives for remediation of brownfield sites. I just don’t believe the profits of large developers should override the government’s planning guidelines that state we should only be building on greenbelt under “exceptional circumstances” (recently robustly reinforced by the government as described by Mr Golding above). Reduced profits are not “exceptional circumstances”.

I live where I live because I love the semi-rural feel of Wilmslow, I want to keep it that way. I believe the vast majority of residents feel the same way but are not being heard by the council who are supposed to represent us. If elected, my intent is to argue for what the people in the ward want...if that turns out to be houses all over Butterfly Bank, Upcast lane, Adlington Road, Royal London and any other bit of green we have then I have a bit of a moral dilemma. I’m not a betting man but I’m willing to bet that won’t happen in this case.

Sorry, didn’t mean for it to turn into an election speech!

Best regards,

David
Barry Buxton
Wednesday 8th October 2014 at 11:12 pm
Methinks Mr Golding protests too much - and displays his inability to assess, with fair balance, the future strategic economic needs and opportunities of the whole area when using language like "wolf pack" and "snarling jaws".

With regard to green belt and in particular the Royal London site: Why are the Luddites (given they don't like the terms 'ostrich' or 'nimby') so uptight about a site which is already in commercial use and where the general public have no access? Don't tell me it's because it would set a precedent because that old chestnut won't wash.
Pete Taylor
Thursday 9th October 2014 at 8:43 am
David: very well put.

Barry: you say that the Royal London site is in commercial use, this is true; there are vacant offices advertised for rent and have been for many, many years, so why do we need more? However, the parts of that site in question, where the new buildings have been proposed, are in use as tenanted agricultural land and are in the Green Belt so, whilst farming can be described as a business, it cannot be described as "commercial".
Manuel Golding
Thursday 9th October 2014 at 11:27 am
Mr. Buxton, it is not that I do not appreciate cheap jibes, ostrich, nimby & now luddite, it just that they are so inappropriate and far removed from reality and once again, show the writer's inability to understand both the subject, history and locality.

Let us look at Royal London and the wider Wilmslow employment picture.

Pete Taylor explains the commercial element of RL. Its buildings etc are on what is termed "brownfield". It would like to develop into the green belt area of its site:-
1) It would like to build offices to employ, it says, up to 1500 - where is its business plan? This has never been produced.
2) It would like to build 75 homes on the site's green belt.
3) It would like to build a hotel. Where is the business plan? It has never been produced.

Item 1 - RoWs research shows there are 176000 square feet of empty office space in Wilmslow, including nearly 10000 sq ft at Royal London. Is that not enough space for any company that wishes to employ a further 1500 in the town? The company has never put forward a business plan. It could however redevelop its Lloyd House site by building on its existing brownfield car park area, with either underground or decked parking. There is therefore no necessity to take any green belt. In addition, RoW has been insisting to CEC for well over two years that brownfield sites should be used as first call for development; we have listed and passed them to CE time after time, only to be ignored. Now the DCLG has taken up our argument.

Item 2 - Wilmslow has built or has planning permission for around 200 homes out of its targeted 400 over the period 2010 to 2030. That is 50% within 3 years out of the 20 year period! On this score we do not need to build 75 homes on the green belt.

Item 3 - A hotel? How many bedrooms? RoW has researched the areas hotels - most would give their eye tooth for a 75% occupancy rate. Where is the demand?

Royal London's motives here are quite simple - to increase its asset values, at the expense and detriment of the wider Wilmlow community.

4) The so called "Wilmslow Business Park" running between the railway & the Wlm by-pass towards the Prestbury Road (spur). Whilst this is not part of Royal London, it is part of the green belt. Once again, no business plan has been produced.

Mr. Buxton argues that the "general public has no access". What has this to do with green belt? One of the "exceptional circumstances" for going into green belt is NOT "public access".

Precedent do not come into the argument for protecting Wilmslow's green belt, even if it is horse-chestnut season!

May I suggest Mr. Buxton, that you carefully read the DCLG's press release and you will see one of its first headlines reads thus;-

"Ministers have underlined the government’s commitment to protect the green belt from development."

What and where is your problem?
Barry Buxton
Thursday 9th October 2014 at 3:47 pm
Does Mr Golding really not care about whether the public have access to many parts of the green belt - the amenity he treasures so much?

In the case of Royal London's main green belt site, not only do the public not have access - they can't even see it! What is this fuss all about?
John Hanna
Thursday 9th October 2014 at 8:45 pm
This article is about a candidate wishing to represent the wishes of the electorate. If he is elected, it will be because people want the green belt to be protected. More effort should be made to redevelop brownfield sites and possible alternative use of long vacant office accommodation.
Manuel Golding
Friday 10th October 2014 at 9:37 am
Mr Buxton has a very severe case of social myopia.
The green belt strategy is primarily about "safeguarding the countryside from encroachment", " check the unrestricted sprawl of ....built up areas" i,e. Wilmslow with Alderley Edge, Handforth with Gatley/Bramhall etc for e.g., "preventing neighbouring towns (& settlements) from merging into one another" and to "assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict & other urban land" are just three of the five (5) designations for green belt preservation.
No where in the NPPF legislation Mr. Buxton, is there a requirement for green belt to be an open public space. As we all must know, there are many green belt areas that are open for public usage, just not Royal London's site which is privately owned.
Whether Mr. Buxton can see Royal London's site or not is not a "exceptional circumstance" for putting the site under concrete (he would certainly be able to see the constructed offices, probably remaining empty for years if not being subject to a "change of usage" with houses being substituted. And let is not forget the planned hotel). With development comes further chaotic traffic, the impact on Alderley Road, the two by-passes and on the town as a whole just for starters. In fact there has been no infrastructure assessment or planning (traffic, essential services, environment etc) by either CEC or Royal London.
I love to be able to go into the green countryside around Wilmslow and to wish to maintain Wilmslow for what it is, a green and pleasant little town in which to live, in preference to an urban concrete jungle, as Mr. Buxton so obviously prefers.
This is what, to use Mr. Buxton's phraseology, all the fuss is about!

If readers agree with my sentiments, do please vote for DAVID JEFFERAY, the RESIDENTS OF WILMSLOW candidate, at the forthcoming WTC East Ward by-election.
Barry Buxton
Friday 10th October 2014 at 1:14 pm
Mr Golding needs to understand that strategic town and country planning is not about his needs and preferences, or that of our entire generation. It's about the best COMPROMISE to serve the social AND economic needs of future generations.

It's the younger people who need to stand up and be counted - otherwise they will sleepwalk into and through the long-term stagnation of ROW's rose-tinted, yesteryear version of what's best for the denizens of Wilmslow.
Manuel Golding
Saturday 11th October 2014 at 4:36 pm
In answer to Mr. Buxton's latest comment of misunderstanding of the value of green belt wherever it may be and of RoWs wish to retain and preserve Wilmslow's, it is precisely to maintain Wilmslow as a most suitable place to live for the younger and future generations. His alternative vision may be seen in Manchester; travel up Oldham Road to Oldham itself, or Rochdale Rd to Rochdale. Mile after mile, probably 20 miles or more to both destinations, of brick & concrete before seeing open countryside. His same vision is to be seen around Birmingham, London & other conurbations.
He states that the best way forward to his new concreted world should be about compromise for the economic needs of the future. I do not have an issue with this, other than to say the economic needs of Wilmslow are being served just over the northern boundaries in Gt. Manchester, which is indeed an economic centre of world renown.
Wilmslow's future generations deserve a lovely place to come home to from their toils, not a industrial, commercial, office block town. And what about the 176000 sq ft of empty office space within the town? Is that not enough economic opportunity for you?
What the advocates of green belt destruction will not admit is that the workplace world has drastically changed. We can now work from home, only need occasional work related travel, no need for large office edifices in small towns like ours. But then, we do have the offices, albeit long empty.
Surprise, surprise - RoW does have younger people supporting and working for the very same "RoW rose-tinted" values that he decries. And, they are certainly not sleep-walking into the kind of world he would advocate for them.
Final word, please do read the DCLG press release - the Department is with us Mr. Buxton.
Barry Buxton
Sunday 12th October 2014 at 12:19 pm
Mr Golding: I wouldn't advise getting carried away by a DCLG press release at this time - we are after all, now in the pre-General Election period.
Kathryn Blackburn
Tuesday 14th October 2014 at 12:07 pm
Lest we forget Mr Buxton the Luddites were taken very seriously by the government of the day who were haunted by the spectre of a popular uprising not unlike we are beginning to see today in the form of the United Kingdom Independence Party and todays government.
Pete Taylor
Tuesday 14th October 2014 at 1:45 pm
Barry Buxton, do you have a view on this:
http://bit.ly/1nkxtE0

800 houses proposed in ribbon development alongside the so-called Alderley by-pass.