Work to commence on Adlington Road development

The circular to residents states, "Working hours are restricted to 0800 to 1830 Monday to Friday.".In the decision notice condition 20 states, "The hours of construction(and associated deliveries to the site) of the development hereby permitted shall be 0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday". Just to let let everyone know that there has been no variation of this condition.

CEC Leader Cllr Michael Jones to a packed meeting of the Friends of Dean Row "These fields will never be built on".

The Adlington Road site is totally unsuitable for this residential development.The road ,especially the descent to Vardon Bridge,will be lethally dangerous for the many young children who will walk and cycle to gain access to the Bollin Valley and beyond.The Council Officers and Emerson Homes have refused to recognise the danger especially for young cyclists.They have proposed narrowing the road to provide a footpath which Road Safety Auditors have declared inadequate and unsafe.The Council and the developers have rejected The Auditors recommendations for providing a safe footpath.They have shown a total disregard for the safety of these children.

It's depressing that local views, which were in a majority against this development, have been totally disregarded by Cheshire East Council and Jones Developers. Now more green fields will be concreted over instead of using the many brownfield sites available. Anyone can see this site is unsuitable for 204 houses and the extra perhaps 300 children who will live there. Adlington Road is already struggling with the existing traffic and I agree with Gerry Lemon that child cyclists and pedestrians , of which there are none at present, will be put at serious risk using this road, but sadly the Developers and the Council and even the Road Safety Audit don't seem to care, perhaps because they erroneously think they have no responsibility in this regard.

Gerry you are absolutely correct. They show scant regard for the genuine concerns raised in the Safety Audits.

I see too that having got rid of the two mature trees to make way for the entrance to the site, the hedge along the frontage now has to come down and anywhere where it might obstruct "sight lines". The hedge was down to be maintained and it is part of one of the conditions that no work should be carried out on trees, hedges or shrubs other than what had formed part of the application and agreed. Have they asked and Cheshire East agreed to the changes? As far as I can see Cheshire East have just rolled over and given them whatever they want. As to the Council's website showing what is going on, still no contamination report or archaeology report - so much for transparency from the Council we fund

Our Government say we need more houses!!.. here they are!!.. they bring new people into Wilmslow.. and therefore new money!!. Their old houses are released for new buyers.. new buyers on the housing ladder!!.. we all have to start somewhere. As for the Council.. you will get your chance to tell them how you feel at the next election!!

Allan - no -one disputes that more houses are needed. The issue is that in Wilmslow there are many brownfield sites which could be used. There is also a glut of unoccupied office space. Thirdly, Wilmslow has one of the highest rates of unoccupied houses in Cheshire East. Building new houses simply creates more problems not less.

Jackie, I take all your points absolutely!!!... problem is, people want to live there, not anywhere else!!. As I understand it, this land has been classified as "White Belt", for some time, so the people who bought houses near to that land would have been advised that at some time it could be built on.The fact that Jones Homes and David Wilson Homes are starting in February, tells you that they can sell these houses because it is in a much desirable place to live.I like to think that I am a fair and even handed person, ok, nobody wants anything building or extending in their own back yard, but if we want our country to grow and be successful, then,the infrastructure must grow with it, and I'm afraid that must include new housing!!

Allan - government guidelines are quite clear on using brownfield land first. As to people knowing that it would happen, any land can be developed. The fact that it was safeguarded land meant it actually had more protection from development because it could only be developed as part of the Local Plan. Most people were quite willing for the Independent Inspector to decide whether the time had come for this land to be used, but it was our Council who choose to give permission in advance of the Local Plan - because they were probably worried that he would not accept the need to develop it = on the grounds that a) alternative sites were available b) the constraints of the infrastructure in this part of Wilmslow, especially in the light of the fact of 1000 houses given permission round the corner in Bramhall by Stockport.

thanks Jackie!!.. I'm happy.. if you are happy!!.. nothing we can do about it now.. we just have to put it behind us..but it was good to talk!!

Jackie- quite interested to know about your planning qualifications. You talk so affirmatively about current planning policy. Unfortunately you are quite wrong. Firstly there is no brownfield land in Wilmslow not otherwise occupied by valuable economic activity and secondly, there is no current 'brownfield first' planning policy in the English planning system. If you disagree, please point me to it. Allan is absolutely right.

Barry - Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph 025 encourages the reuse of brownfield land. It looks at the viability of using brownfield sites - encourages its use and, "authorities do not have to allocate only those sites that provide the maximum return for landowners and developers". As to none existing, otherwise occupied by "valuable economic economic activity" , Residents of Wilmslow drew up detailed lists - some of the sites identified the local authority agreed and have been developed and some are still outstanding.

Jackie- the PPG is exactly that - guidance, not policy. Nor is 'encouraging' the use of brownfield land equivalent to a brownfield first policy. Sorry to labour the point but RoW use this argument so often incorrectly it is slightly concerning.

Barry - the PPG may be "guidance", but like much governmental "guidance" it provides a coherant and nationally consistent baseline. The same sort of governmental guidance is used for public health, education etc. It sets a framework. I take the point that this does not equate to "brownfield first", but what it does is give local authorities the reasoned power to put brownfield first if they have the will to do so and can justify their case. It seems to me that in Wilmslow, as in many other towns, there are ways of utilising unproductive brownfield sites preferentially to developing new land.

Allan - I concur, you offer a very rational, reasonable and practical view on this subject.

Firstly, I live in Wilmslow & have been affected by relentless development of this great town.

However we do need new housing across this town and indeed all villages, towns and cities across the UK. There is a massive housing shortage of approx. 125,000 new homes per year, resulting in crazy prices, supernormal profits for some developers, stagnation of the property paradox and a lack of affordable homes for all.

Let me qualify the statement "affordable homes"....this is not only terraced housing on redundant brownfield sites. We need housing across all aspects of the housing ladder to ensure property prices are more reasonable at every level in the chain. Supply and demand drives prices.

With regards to local infrastructure. Councils already have the right to apply a CIL TAX(Community Infrastructure Levy) to any development.

A minority of wilmslow residents have benefited from the inflated property prices & therefore have vested interest to protect & oppose any new development. This is the case for every new development that appears on this website or indeed on the Cheshire East planning portal.

NIMBYISM is a very powerful & dangerous state of mind!

I am sure whatever our views on the merits of particular residential developments we would all wish that these were safe for the residents and particularly the children.I have expressed concern to the Council Officers about road safety issues.I am confident that any parent would share my concern about their children walking and cycling to Vardon Bridge.A Road Safety Audit is the process for alerting the Developer and the Councils Highway Authority to any safety issues.The Auditor's guidelines stress the importance of considering vulnerable groups such as young cyclists.The auditors report was commissoned by the Emerson Group and I have referred to this above.The report contained no reference to safety issues for young cyclists .I contacted the Auditors and they indicated that there was a
significant safety issue which they thought would be a key factor in refusing planning permission.They also stated that they did not refer to the problem In the report because they had no solution to recommend.Auditors will know that it is not their function to design solutions .That is the responsibility of the Highway Authority who will obviously do nothing if not confronted by a rigorous report.The process has failed to protect the young residents of this development.The Council should stop all work on this development until they produce a plan for dealing with this serious issue.

Ryan - agree that Wilmslow needs more affordable homes of all types. There is nothing written that these should "only" be built on brownfield sites, nor that these should only be "terraced houses". The fact is that at Adlington road the developers attempted to reduce the number of " affordable homes" and then chose to ignore good practice and concentrate them in two areas rather than pepper pot them throughout the site. Both Cheshire East and Wilmslow identified the need for more affordable homes both for the young and the old. For the latter they have agreed to 10 bungalows. So the upshot is that of the 204 homes granted permission, few are for "starter homes" and fewer still are for the elderly and those needing to live on a single level. Even if you accept that this site should be built on then the mix of dwellings ( large 3/4/5 bedroom executive homes) does not match the identified need. This is not nimbyism - it is defining a problem and then tailoring a solution to the problem.

Barry Lawlor states there are no brownfield sites in Wilmslow.
Presumably he may shop at Waitrose, and next to there , there is the redundant BT Exchange, which seem to be a used only in a little piece of it for Open Reach technicians, to have a rest etc.
Next to this there is an empty pice of ground, owned by Jones's, for future offices (sic).
This are is an ideal brownfield for starter units for young people, potentially 20 units.
Cannot anyone see this?

Jackie - This is precisely my point

If we accept the premise that the UK (even our cosy little villages... semi rural towns or large cities) need more housing then I don't understand why those that oppose developments seem to take issue with 3 / 4 / 5 bedroom executive homes. I walked through Wilmslow (last night) and there is a plethora of 3/4/5/6 plus bedroom homes dating from the 1850's to the modern day.....all of which sell for upwards of £300k to £2.5million.

The identified need - is greater supply of decent housing (yes - all types...even 3/4/5 bedroom "executive" homes). Although im not really sure where the term "executive" is derived from? we are discussing standard 3/4/5 bedroom properties?

Maybe a 8000+ sq ft arts & crafts home with 8 bedrooms & 4 bathrooms, 1/4 acre plot, 2 garages & parking for 5 cars is more suited to this over used housing description. You can pick one up in the golden triangle for about £2.5m

I'll give you a real life example. We would like to move within Wilmslow (we have 2 children, married & currently live in a relatively spacious 3 bedroom house)...we would like a 4 or 5 bedroom house (We don't see this requirement as "executive" but a more basic need for our growing & aspiring family). Now the problem - this type of housing stock in Wilmslow is well over +£600k....which is not only absurd, unrealistic & poor value for money but requires an annual income of around £170k pa or put more bluntly (27 times the UK median income)

Maybe the real reason is not due to the proposed blend of housing stock but more NIMBYISM.

Gerry Lemon - We are very concerned that the entrances of the proposed two houses directly opposite One Oak Lane are far too close to the blind bend from Wilmslow and on the advice of RoSPA have written to the Chief Constable, Simon Byrne, at Cheshire Police, Clemonds Hey, Oakmere Road, Winsford, CW7 2UA. I wonder if you have thought about approaching him regarding your concerns for children and cyclists? The solution to our problem would be a service road for the five houses to be built on that stretch of Adlington Road with an exit beside Waterside but CEC and Jones' do not agree.

Ryan Dance - why would you want to live in Wilmslow when all the proposed housing developments (Handforth village/Woodford etc.) will put such pressure on roads, school places, medical facilities? It will not be the pleasant town it is now which will no doubt be reflected in lower house prices. One gets what one pays for.

Sandra - You are absolutely right ref paying a premium for a decent area...i'm comfortable paying a premium however the price /earnings ratio is disproportionate. This can only be addressed by new housing stock.

Have a browse through the history of proposed developments reported on wilmslow.co.uk - you will see a vociferous & anti-development campaign. A campaign that extends across vacant shops, office space, petrol stations, pub developments & even new parking needs at Royal London.

The degree of NIMBYISM exposed on this site is truly shocking. Let's keep the town as it was 1850 while most other forward thinking, innovative, proactive & growth driven villages, towns & cities prosper.

With regards to local facilities/services - as already explained, Council's should apply a CIL TAX (Community Infrastructure Levy) to all developments & reinvest this tax accordingly in local services....seldom does this actually happen.

Ryan Dance

Ryan Dance - Having been in the market for a 4 bedroom house in Wilmslow a year ago I can tell you it is certainly not "well over +£600k". In fact, if you look on Rightmove right now, there are 35 houses with at least four bedrooms currently on the market in Wilmslow for less than £600k, many considerably so.

But putting that to one side, why do you imagine Jones are going to price these houses substantially lower than, say, the Regent's Park development, where they were still selling houses up to about a year ago. Why would someone who couldn't afford those suddenly find these ones more affordable?

But arguing that what is and isn't affordable on what income is silly. People will always be able to afford to live some places and not others. Because if you fix Wilmslow, what about the people who can't afford to live in Alderley Edge? What about the ones who can't afford Prestbury? It goes on and on...

Jon - The point on housing stock & price/earnings is not silly but very sound/rational...it is well documented across government & bank of england policy.

We are 125,000 houses per year short of the government target with a rapidly ageing & swelling population. This is a fact that needs addressing.

Ryan - yes, it is well documented when considered NATIONALLY... not in one particularly small part of one particular borough.

By the argument you put above the government should be doing something because I can't afford to live in Chelsea on my means. There are plenty of other places I can afford to live... I have no right to have a house anywhere I want one, just because I'd like to live there.

Jon - The point you make regarding "one small borough" made me chuckle. You see most residents of desirable villages, towns, cities share your view. No one really wants development on their doorstep. Multiple this view across the UK & development grinds to a halt.

Your statement "the government should be doing something because I can't afford to live in Chelsea on my means" is badly misguided! We do not build enough houses. This is a fact. (widely reported, acknowledged & accepted across all government & most credible organisations). Lack of supply & high demand drives price inflation.

The "one small borough" phrase, which you've chosen to use completely out of context, was in response to you saying 4 bedroom houses in Wilmslow cost over £600k (although I proved to you that they don't), and you using the alleged lack of affordability of this as a reason to develop Wilmslow extensively. If you can point me to any Government or Bank of England documents specifically discussing housing stock and earnings ratio in Wilmslow in I stand to be corrected, but otherwise my point remains that you can't point to lack of a particular type of house at a particular price point in "one small borough" and draw broad conclusions on that.

Regarding the second quotation you've taken out of context, I don't disagree that we don't build enough homes. But you weren't arguing that we need more homes, you were arguing that you want more cheaper homes where you want to live which isn't the same thing at all.

Jon - my point remains regarding supply & demand.

You continue to misrepresent my view(s). Please let me clarify my stance: -

1) We do indeed need more homes. Increasing the stock of homes (all types) will free up the supply chain, get the market moving & over the longer term ease house price inflation

2) The average house price (zed index) in SK9 is £458k (zoopla.co.uk). This is way in excess of median incomes & national averages. Clearly this is a blended number so I stand by the estimate of approx. £600k.

3) Affordability, restricted supply or general high demand do drive house price inflation. 1 solution is to increase the supply of housing or apply other supply side polices. There is a reason why we fail to build the 250,000 homes a year we need. Planning, prohibitive land costs & local opposition to name just a few.

4) I made no reference to "developing wilmslow extensively". I stated that most developments attract negativity, opposition & nimbyism. I also stated that wilmslow needs to move with the times. Check the latest census...look around ...the world is changing at an incredible pace. Surely we need to move with the times.

5) With regards to policy documents. Read around the subject & draw your own conclusion(s). There is consensus....i think it is reasonable & fair that these conclusions are applied (in general terms) to housing problems across the UK.

6) I never used the phrase "Cheaper homes" I said we need more homes that are more reasonably priced. There is a crusade against so called "executive homes". I merely stated that a standard 4 bedroom home should not be defined as "executive" & cost in excess of 27 times the median UK wage.

7) Please take some time to review the history of proposed developments reported on wilmslow.co.uk - you will see a vociferous & anti-development campaign. A campaign that extends across vacant shops, office space, petrol stations, pub developments & even new parking needs at Royal London.

Great debate! Look forward to seeing comments from you on other future developments in this great town of Wilmslow.

Ryan Dance

Evening Ryan.

The basic assumption that you are making is that there is a normal supply and demand curve in the housing market, - namely that if the supply of houses is increased then prices will fall. Your argument assumes that housing behaves like a commodity, however, this is not realistic in the case of a scarce and geographically circumscribed resource such as housing, and the land upon which it is built. In these circumstances demand so far exceeds any reasonable expectation ( or indeed possibility) of supply that price is fundamentally inelastic. Futhermore, high house prices actually encourages higher supply, not less, as it enourages housholders to sell and developers to build. The reason developers want to build in Wilmslow, Alderley and Prestbury is because they perceive that they can charge a premium for the property they are supplying. Compare, for example, the price of new homes being built by a developer in Cheadle to comparable homes in Wilmslow.

I fully agree with Jackie's evaluation. Houses do not obey normal supply and demand rules because they are not moveable.

In addition, in my view the price of houses is almost entirely determined by the availability of finance, the cost of building being quite a small factor. Just about everyone borrows as much as they can, then selects the house they can buy based on that, not the other way around.

Good evening Jackie & Fred

You make some interesting points however most of which are incorrect.

1) There is a supply & demand curve - whilst it may be not be perfectly correlated price vs demand. One is at work. Demand for housing is not inelastic.

2) "Inelastic" assumes no change in demand as a result of changing prices Demand is consistent when prices go both up & down e.g petrol. To define the housing market as inelastic is misleading & incorrect

3) I'm assuming the scarce resources you are referring to? is land? you mean the 12.7% (check the fact for yourself) of land actually built on? plenty of remaining land I think. But protected under ancient green belt policy & or dated planning bureaucracy?

4) If high house prices encourage developers to build why are we building 125,000 fewer homes per year than needed? again, you can check that fact too. Planning issues, prohibitive land costs & local opposition are the main issues

5) And finally the golden triangle - yes, high house prices do encourage development - of course they do....however developers will only build where the can make a return (remembering that our pension funds are probably well invested in these large firms too) We all need to earn money Jackie - it is a basic need for us all

Fred - Yes they do.. but price is inextricably linked to supply. One other point, building is not a relatively small cost. Go online & check the annual accounts of the major housebuilders yourself

Interesting you say I misrepresent your views when you take random strings or words from me and using them out of context. However, I'll bite...

1) Absolutely, we need all types of houses. But we don't need to site them by just going, "that area is popular let's build some more". Developing the former BAE Systems site for example would provide a great deal of houses, on a crumbling industrial eyesore, and on a site that has good transport links. There are many other similar locations nearby - I can think of one in Holmes Chapel with similar advantages. However, Jones et al would much rather develop a site currently being used to graze sheep that has poor transport links as there's no expensive site clearance to do and the Council will roll over and let them. All the while the derelict brownfield sites continue to fall apart. Do you not concede it would be advantageous to develop these brownfield sites first?

2) And I continue to contend the average house price here isn't a reason to develop. There are huge parts of the country where you can get lovely houses for a fraction of what they are here. Some things cost more than others... that's just the way it is. The estimate of £600k for a 4 bed house has already been disproved.

3) The prices are high here because the location has many desirable features. The airport, proximity to motorways, railways, shopping, lovely countryside. Rather than overload the existing areas, perhaps improve the infrastructure in places that are seen as less desirable, which would in turn create jobs and demand?

4) Wilmslow has and does move with the times. Look at an OS map from 50 or so years ago. Look at how much more of Wilmslow there is now that there was then. There are many other places in Cheshire and southern Greater Manchester than have been developed nowhere near as extensively. Perhaps it's their turn? Wouldn't this also relieve demand on the currently high-priced and popular places?

6) If by more reasonably priced you don't mean cheaper I'm unclear how you think this will aid the wage / house price ratio. You want more houses at the same price? More houses that are more expensive?

7) Absolutely. Some of them I agree with and some I don't. The Royal London site, for example, I would happily develop. It's not accessible (or even very visible) to the public, has excellent access to main roads and would be relatively low impact to nearby residents. But in this particular case, I think building more expensive houses in fields where sheep graze and there are no local amenities doesn't help solve any of the problems you are concerned about and brings little benefit to anyone except Jones Homes.

Jon - we won't agree.... our paradigms are light years apart. It has been a pleasure to debate!

I thinking we need a chat forum on here or an open debate at the old dancer! (perhaps bi-monthly)

Have a look at the post - "Royal London applies to build new permanent car park". Even this has caused a stir amongst wilmslow residents! Quite animated i must say & nimbyism at it's best!!!! enjoy!

Well said Jon Armstrong

The point is Ryan that housing does not slide up and down a demand curve. The demand curve can shift to the right or to the left because price is only one of a whole range of factors. As to the point on land - because there is a great deal of land not built on does not affect the situation if large tracts of land are nowhere where people need to live. You have also not built into your analysis the speculative element of both home ownership and house building, which affects both supply and demand. Finally, it is not pssible to speak of one housing market - it is clear, for example, that the housing market in London operates differently from other areas of the country.

I have had first hand experience of my child not getting into their catchment high school on first admission round so beg the question....Where are these extra kids going to be schooled?
All local secondary schools are oversubscribed and I was told last year by a school admissions staff member that "there were no plans to increase intake" of secondary schools in and around Wilmslow.
Perhaps they will be chauffeured in taxis at the expense of Cheshire East council/taxpayers money....to further flung schools as many already are!
Ticking school time gets worse with these houses!!