Having criticised the Cheshire East Local Plan at a hearing before the Inspector, Stephen Pratt, Stockport Borough Council has subsequently withdrawn their submission.
Richard Wood, Technical Policy and Planning Officer of SMBC, read out a statement at the hearing on Friday, 30th October, which claimed the development set out in the Cheshire East Local Plan would have a 'severe impact' on traffic congestion in the whole of south Stockport and undo the benefits of the £230m Manchester Airport Relief Road in 10 years.
Speaking about the work carried out on behalf of Cheshire East Council, Richard Wood said "What this does is identify that once the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road opens there will be a period of up to ten years before the growth in traffic arising purely from the development set out in the Cheshire East Local Plan will use up the highway capacity freed up within local communities. In its entirety.
"Notably that is with no regard to any efforts to repurpose the relieved space for more sustainable use once it is no longer required to accommodate the traffic then able to use the new road - in the scenario of that being done, as is intended, the impact would presumably be even greater at the key points or linkages onto which traffic will be redistributed. And whilst clearly not Cheshire East's responsibility, it is also with no regard to any development growth arising within Stockport or other adjacent authorities.
"That impact – 2 to 7% increase in journey times, as referred to by Cheshire East officers this morning – is not just at the number of critical 'hotspots' it identifies or on the key routes such as the A34 that one might expect but is spread across the whole of the network in the modelled area, essentially the whole of Stockport south of the M60."
"So forgive me if I am somewhat dismissive of the Council's case on this but my authority simply cannot see how that - eroding the benefit of a £230m road scheme in its entirety - is anything but a severe impact unless it is suitably mitigated."
He continued "I would argue, however, that a level of congestion which requires a £230m road scheme to resolve, along with the other measures in an extensive package of multi- modal transport improvements over a 20 year period – particularly bearing in mind that such matters are key to determining whether such schemes can gain funding or indeed planning permission – is likely to be considered 'severe' in the perception of anyone other than, seemingly, representatives of Cheshire East Council. A severe impact, as the Framework and PPG are clear, can be reason for development to not be permitted – and so it follows that to proceed it would require suitable, adequate mitigation to reduce its impact to something less than severe.
"And so I ask on behalf of my authority: We know the cumulative impact will be severe - what is the intervention, or suite of interventions, to mitigate it to an acceptable, less than severe, level and where are the mechanisms to ensure those interventions are brought about and achieve their aims in a suitable timeframe?
"Without, as it stands, any satisfactory answers to those questions - or indeed an understanding of whether there even are satisfactory answers to those questions - my authority simply cannot see how this plan can possibly be considered 'deliverable' or, it follows, 'effective'."
The statement was read out at Macclesfield Town Hall before the assembled group, consisting of local councillors, planning advisers and concerned groups - including Residents of Wilmslow. The statement was subsequently sent to Cheshire East Council and added to the examination library (item RE D023) where it was accessible to members of the public but was subsequently withdrawn by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.
A spokesperson for Cheshire East Council said: "The representative of Stockport Council read out a statement at the Cheshire East Local Plan Examination hearing on Friday, October 30.
"This statement was submitted to the Inspector – and, in accordance with normal procedures, was placed in the examination library. The content of the statement was strongly rebutted by Cheshire East officers at the hearing.
"On November 4, Stockport Council indicated that they wished the statement to be withdrawn – and subsequently confirmed on Thursday, November 5, that they had requested the Inspector to disregard both the written statement and the verbal submission made at the hearing on October 30. Accordingly the statement was removed from the examination library."
Councillor Rachel Bailey, Cabinet member in charge of the Local Plan Task Force, said: "We regret that this statement was made at the hearing and are pleased that it has now been withdrawn.
"We have been pleased to work with Stockport on cross-boundary issues over the past few years and look forward to continuing to work closely with them on matters such as highways and transportation in the future."
Updated: 5.15pm on Wednesday, 11th November.
Following my enquiry I have now received a statement from Stockport Council.
A Stockport Council spokesperson said: "Stockport Council made a written submission to the resumed Cheshire East Local Plan examination setting out our position. At the examination hearing on Friday October 30th, a supplementary statement was made and this has now been withdrawn so that further work on cross-boundary transport implications with Cheshire East Council can be agreed. Stockport Council will continue to work with Cheshire East Council to ensure the Local Plan's impact on the highways network in Stockport can be mitigated."
Photo: Councillor Rachel Bailey, Cabinet member in charge of the Local Plan Task Force.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
There was a reason for the statement, which in fact was not too different from SMBCs previous statements of concern.
No amount of trying to hide the true facts or withdrawals (rather akin to the Lyme Green fiasco report being almost blacked out to protect guilty officers & councillors) will undo SMBCs very real & expressed concerns over both the SEMMS and A34 roads - CEC had not properly consulted SMBC over CEs plans for mega house building in the borough's north, with the resultant swamping of Stockport's roads.
Sorry, but you just will be unable to hide it. Stockport's figures & concerns are now in the open for all to see.
I bet Cheshire East is "... pleased that it has now been withdrawn." How embarrassing the truth can prove to be, especially if it is one you don't wish to be aired.
You really cannot keep on fooling us Cllr Bailey, the proverbial cat is on the loose.
Can't CEC take constructive comments? What happened to courage and integrity?
I hope to hear that Cllrs will submit their resignations. This is morally indefensible. Cllr Rachel Bailey over to you.
Could it be that future deals have been agreed on the basis of SMBC withdrawing their opposition and criticism of CEC plans?
The main thing coming out of this is that SMBC and CEC don't see eye to eye and obviously have no regard for each others plans. Once again the only people to suffer for these politicians are the residents of Wilmslow and Handforth who will bear the brunt of the traffic that SMBC have predicted and when in 10 years time the area becomes virtually gridlocked at each end of the day, who will remember that the councillors of SMBC got it right, but for some reason backed down.
The areas of Handforth, Wilmslow and the South M60 Stockport area is very congested, yet both councils are guilty of adding to the problems by building hundreds of houses in areas where the householders are bound to become commuters.
What the residents need is some joined up thinking, which although it should have happened prior to Woodford Aerodrome, should definitely have happened at this juncture. This was the perfect opportunity lost. Had SMBC stuck to their guns and objected then surely that would have brought the two councils together. Now all we have is CEC which seem hell bent on building hundreds of houses in Wilmslow, yet have done a deal with Staffordshire Council to have houses built in the Newcastle/Stoke area. This proves that joined up thinking can be done by CEC when it suits them.
Well bottled by SMBC.
This morning, on my way to a dental appointment, I had to abandon my car in a restaurant car park and jog to my appointment - I was moving significantly faster than any of the cars - and I am not at all fit!
How will the cross boundary transport implications (i.e. impact) be mitigated? One solution is for CEC to abandon the Handforth East plan, to look at development, if necessary, way to the southern end of the former Macclefield BC Green Belt. A second solution is for SMBC go for major roads enlargements, demolishing homes along A34 Kingsway, rebuilding the Gatley Rd/Kingsway junction etc; widening the SEMMS road together with its junctions = major reconstruction & major relocating affected population to elsewhere.
SMBC cannot be too pleased with CEC, not the noisy neighbour but the secretive neighbour.
With the approval of the Inspector SMBC will be preparing a joint statement which will set out the points upon which SMBC and CEC agree or disagree – something that will be of great interest to us all.
It was clear however by the immediate response from officers at CEC following the statement, that they had seemingly totally disregarded the concerns raised by SMBC and indeed by many others – Handforth Parish Council, Independent ward councillors, planning consultants, residents groups and residents themselves, including those living in neighbouring Woodford to name some.
Unfortunately this lack of regard of the views and concerns of others in respect of the Local Plan appears to be endemic within the Council.
At no point since the election in May have the Cabinet, the Local Plan Task Force, or officers from the council engaged with ward councillors on a ward by ward basis, despite repeated requests from myself.
This amended plan has been approved by ten Conservative councillors, the Leader and his appointed Cabinet members (including the portfolio holder for the Local Plan, Councillor Rachel Bailey).
The remaining 72 councillors (88% of the Council) representing 43 of the 52 wards across the Borough have not been briefed, consulted, nor have they agreed the revisions in full council.
I would question if these are the actions of a democratic council.
Councillor Toni Fox – Independent
Dean Row Ward, Wilmslow
http://bit.ly/1M9ciOp
21 March, 2014.
Is this still in the Local Plan?