Wilmslow Town Council has been fully engaged with the process of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan since its first stages back in 2012.
At that time the Town Council assisted Cheshire East Council in helping to facilitate a local consultation on potential development sites in Wilmslow over the next 25 to 30 years. The Town Council's role in this process was misinterpreted by many who felt that as The Town Council were helping to facilitate the consultation they must be in full agreement with the development of sites identified by Cheshire East, this was most certainly not the case as demonstrated by the Town Council's own response to the consultation. It is a matter of record that Wilmslow Town Council has regularly challenged Cheshire East on the proposed development of sites situated in the Green Belt, and those it has considered unsuitable for development.
The process led by Cheshire East achieved the predictable response of those who responded of saying NO to all green belt housing development for housing as indeed did Wilmslow Town Council. There was also considerable confusion that the sites identified by CEC were recommended for development by CEC whereas our understanding was that these were the available sites from which CEC wanted to select specific sites for housing and this has proved to be the case.
Wilmslow Town Council has, from the early days of this process, opposed the development of the Green Belt for housing, has argued for a brownfield first policy approach and has supported commercial Green Belt development only on a site (Royal London) that it felt had sustainable links with the town centre, was screened effectively from many directions and would encourage the largest employer in the town to prosper and potentially expand.
The Town Council has, over the period of the Local Plan process, made it very clear to Cheshire East Council that it did not support the entire package of development sites presented to the Local Plan Inspector in late 2014. Whilst adopting this view Wilmslow Town Council did feel that a total of 400 new houses during the plan period was not unreasonable as this had been reduced from an earlier number of 1500 thanks to the arguments put forward by both the Town Council in numerous meetings with the Leader of Cheshire East Council and senior officials and by Wilmslow lobby groups. This view on 400 homes took in to consideration the number of houses already built since 2010 and the housing numbers that would result from the large Adlington Road site that did not have Green Belt protection.
The Town Council recognises that the Cheshire East Local Plan is a necessary document and that it needs to pass independent inspection before it can be adopted. The Town Council read with great interest the initial views of the appointed Local Plan inspector when they were published in the Autumn of 2014. What has to be understood is that these views only related to the aspects of the Local Plan that he had examined at that time and that only related to the Cheshire East wide strategic elements. The most significant aspects as far as Wilmslow was concerned was that he believed that the economic forecast for Cheshire East as a whole had been overly pessimistic and that the overall housing numbers which had been calculated from this forecast were therefore too low. The unmistakeable conclusion from this was that overall housing numbers would need to be increased if the Inspector could be expected to accept the Plan. The other significant view for Wilmslow was that the Inspector felt that the distribution of housing numbers between the south of the Borough and the northern towns (including Wilmslow) did not reflect economic growth projections and that a proportionately higher percentage of houses would need to be introduced to these northern towns.
Cheshire East Council subsequently had the option to make amendments to these strategic elements of the Local Plan by the summer of 2015 or to start the entire process again.
Having decided to make alterations to the initial Local Plan submission Cheshire East Council worked to address each of the points made in the Local Plan Inspectors report. Wilmslow Town Council at this time shared the frustration of many other Town and Parish Councils and formally wrote to the Inspector to record its dissatisfaction at the consultation process.
Wilmslow Town Council has always taken the view that Cheshire East Council has a very challenging task to deliver a Local Plan that will both fulfil inevitable housing needs and yet protect green belt space that is so valued by all of us residents
Clearly the revised housing numbers for Wilmslow ( now 900) put forward by Cheshire East Council to the inspector over the past few months represents a significant uplift and, if the Inspector has been convinced that the Strategic elements of the Plan are now sound, these numbers will present a significant challenge and will it seems inevitably mean incursion in to areas of green belt.
There has been a degree of concern expressed by a small number of Wilmslow residents in the press that Wilmslow Town Council has not attended the recent hearings held by the Inspector. I would reiterate that these hearings were not focussed on Wilmslow specific issues but about Cheshire East wide economic projections, Cheshire East wide resultant housing numbers, the Cheshire wide 5 year supply, the technical process for selection of potential green belt sites ( not the selection its self) and the general distribution of homes throughout the Borough. The Town Council's appointed group, that are engaged in this process, believe that arguing against Cheshire East wide issues when the Inspector has already steered Cheshire East Council was an unnecessary distraction believing that getting the best outcome for Wilmslow in terms of influencing site allocations was a more productive approach.
Members of Wilmslow Town Council met again with Cheshire East Council several weeks ago when discussion centred on how the Local Plan would progress if the Inspector agrees to continue the process when he makes his statement later this month.
The Town Council were advised of the technical strategy for identifying possible development sites and were advised of the new strategic sites identified for possible development in Wilmslow. The sites identified at Staneylands, off Dean Row Road and an enlarged site off Upcast Lane had been made public by Cheshire East some weeks earlier.
The members present made clear what they believed to be the most significant local concerns to the addition sites. It was made clear that the additional sites and the originally identified sites in the Local Plan would be consulted on again by Cheshire East Council in early 2016, should the Inspector accept the overall strategy.
Wilmslow Town Council made it clear that it favoured a Neighbourhood Plan to allow residents the opportunity to determine development sites however should the Local Plan proceed in the timescale anticipated by Cheshire East Council this aspect of the Neighbourhood Plan may not be possible. As a result the Town Council advised Cheshire East Council that it would do all it could to ensure that Wilmslow residents were encouraged to respond in large numbers to the site allocation consultation in early 2016 and has subsequently allocated budget funding to do so. At this time to Town Council will be encouraging Wilmslow residents to advise Cheshire East Council of their preferred ( least worst) development sites.
Rest assured that Wilmslow Town Council is in principle opposed to building on the Green Belt and if it is possible to meet the requirements of the local plan by building solely on existing brown field sites this is the preferred option. However we will certainly face pressure from Cheshire East to develop some part of the Green Belt to meet the target of 900 houses required by the Inspector. The council will seek to represent the views of the majority of local residents, and will do everything in its powers to encourage site selection at a local level and not at Cheshire East Council level.
Councillor Keith Purdom, Chairman Wilmslow Town Council.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Wilmslow's largest employer - is that the one providing most business trates to CEC or the one providing most employment for Wilmslow residents? For the former I would expect the Waters Corporation to be a close contender.
Wilmslow (SK9) has good air, road, rail transport links, but is a 'dormitary' town for Chehire, S & Central Mcr employment.
If CEC owned a parcel of development land at Handforth Dean why sell it for retail rather than housing, to defray some of the expected increase in number of houses required for north of CEC?
Councillor Keith Chapman (Wilmslow East)
The Inspector did not say that a higher proportion of houses would have to be introduced into the northern towns – please read his report and see what he did say.
Many of the other Town and Parish Councils attended and contributed to the hearings but apart from Councillor Jefferay none of the Wilmslow Councillors put in an appearance let alone contributed. They have missed a significant opportunity to press the case for Wilmslow residents and to influence Wilmslow specific issues in the local plan. True the hearings did not focus just on Wilmslow specific issues but the issues that were discussed had a major influence on what would happen in Wilmslow at the later site allocation stage of the planning process. If the Inspector were to agree the revised proposals in full then Wilmslow will have to find sites for 900 new houses and it is then inevitable that a large number of these will have to be built in the greenbelt.
WTC have simply stood by and it is now too late for them to do much to prevent large areas of green belt around the town being lost. There was the opportunity to make meaningful contributions on a number of aspects of the revised Plan at the hearings which would have carried more impact coming from the Town Council than from individual residents. Below I list some key areas where a well considered input from the Town Council could have helped protect our green belt.
1. Of the 36,000 houses estimated to be needed for the borough as a whole more than half are attributable to net migration into Cheshire East. To base so much of the housing need on so high a proportion of in migration is questionable and needs to be challenge especially as it is not clear where the migration figures are drawn from and how reliable these estimates can be. Fewer houses for the borough would reflect in fewer houses for Wilmslow.
2. Economic growth has been increased from 0.4% to 0.7% so it is estimated that 31,400 new jobs will be created. However, a closer look at the figures reveals that the number should be 25,000 at 0.7% growth. Cheshire East has ‘rebased’ the starting figure without making clear why this has been done. These new jobs give rise to a need for new houses as people will move (migrate) into Cheshire East (including Wilmslow) to fill them. This even further increase the number of houses that are proposed to accommodate a questionable estimate of the movement of new people into the borough.
3. A large number of greenbelt sites in Wilmslow have been wrongly designated as making only a contribution to greenbelt purposes (as opposed to a significant or major contribution) because out of date figures have been used for potential brownfield sites. This leaves the green belt around the town much more vulnerable to development.
4. Cheshire East has chosen to meet their assessed housing need in full. Planning legislation allows councils to reduce housing numbers if there are constraints on meeting the fully assessed need and green belt is cone such constraint. Had Cheshire East chosen to take this into account some of the housing in Wilmslow could have been significantly reduced.
5. Cheshire East have chosen a Spatial distribution, the way new houses are to be spread around the towns in the borough, that is unsupported by any logical arguments and places a disproportionately large number of houses in the north of the borough. They could have done it differently and allocated fewer houses in the north.
Had Wilmslow Town Council taken the time and trouble to study the Local Plan proposals in detail and attended and contributed to the hearings they could have challenged all the above and more and exerted considerable influence on the plan that is finally adopted. They chose not to do so.
It is not possible for WTC to be opposed ‘in principle’ to building on the green belt when they know full well that there are not enough brownfield sites for 900 new houses. They should be making strenuous efforts to reduce the number of houses allocated to Wilmslow at all stages of the emerging local plan.
No matter what Keith writes the truth is a Local Plan process has been going on for well over two years and Conservative Councillors per say have not engaged as stakeholders as have members of the Residents of Wilmslow (RoW) group who, as registered participants, have contributed to the process throughout. David Lewis’s letter gives some indication of the complexities of this process and the weight of challenge RoW has brought to the table in an attempt to ensure the Plan is soundly based, particularly upon the calculations and methodology CEC has chosen to present to the Inspector. For the people of Wilmslow it is not sufficient to keep hearing their Councillors are opposed to building houses on their Green Belt (are in favour of commercial development here – Royal London) but of knowing that the calculations are absolutely correct, the maths upon which Green Belt will be decimated is soundly based.
The recent meetings, not about Wilmslow but about Cheshire East Keith asserts, were the only time in the entire process the representatives of the people got to meet face to face with the Government Inspector. Mr Pratt wanted CEC to answer the outstanding questions, not go over old ground that is very well documented in the Plan Library. (Peter Yates letter of December 9th, "Carry on regardless with "residents last” very accurately describes these meetings, the weight of business and the positions taken up in the debate by the different groups, public, parish councils, developers and land owners). But, other than Councillor David Jefferay (Ind. WTC) and Councillor Toni Fox (Ind. CEC) Wilmslow Councillors were not there. Had they been they would have realised that the different stakeholder groups across the whole of Cheshire East shared common concerns, the Plan is still flawed and that in representing the people of their towns they were representing people across the whole of Cheshire East on matters that will have a profound effect upon the whole of Cheshire East. They would have witnessed at first hand the concerns Mr Pratt has for the Plan, particularly for migration figures presented by David Lewis, for infrastructure, public consultation and whether there has been sufficient consultation with neighbouring Local Authorities? They would have heard on a number of occasions CEC express that under pressure of time they have not been able to consult with the public the changes they have made to the Plan since in recent times.
It is this lack of consultation that has so upset people again. Letters have been written to local CEC Councillors representing Upcast Lane/Cumber Lane/Lindow Fold Drive. These people rightly complain that their fields, originally taken out of the Green Belt for safeguarding are now recently reclassified for safeguarding and housing. This change was sanctioned by the Councillor with oversight of the Plan, not by committee and without
consultation or knowledge that could have been facilitated by their Wilmslow Councillors. In their responses these local Councillors asserted that the increase in the growth rate from 0.4% to 0.7% and the increase of housing from 400 to 900 was demanded by the Inspector (Councillor Keith Chapman too). Again had our Conservative Councillors been present at the meetings with the Inspector they would have heard Mr Pratt say on a number of occasions it is not his Plan. The Plan belongs to Cheshire East. It is not his job to assert any figures or sites. It is his job to judge whether the proposed Plan is sound, meets planning legislation and the Law.
Little Stannylands is another site with changed status being updated in the revision for safeguarding and housing, as is Heathfield Farm. It comes as no surprise that, people local to these sites have very great concerns for their Green Belt and that a new pressure group is formed, “Stanneylands – Dean Valley.” Is it any wonder this group has turned to RoW for guidance and support given that they too have not been informed by their local Conservative Councillor?
On behalf of WTC Keith Purdom assures the people of Wilmslow that they will work hard to influence which Green Belt sites in Wilmslow will be selected for development. WTC will seek to encourage as many local people as possible to participate in the promised public consultation, to let CEC know which of the sites on offer will cause the least damage. (Royal London is ok for commercial development because it is hidden from view Keith writes – try that one with the people living on Harefield!) But it is not ok for housing. Thus an additional piece of Green Belt land will have to be allocated in order to accommodate the 75 houses already committed by CEC at Royal London CEC (Crackers!). Does Keith really believe WTC can influence site selection given that the first time round a 90% public rejection of the four sites allocated to Wilmslow has had no effect? Adlington Road is being developed, Royal London is committed to provide houses, offices and a hotel and things at Upcast Lane have just got worse with the site changed from being only safeguarded to now being considered for housing with immediate effect. What message is there in this for the people of Little Stanneylands and Heathfield Farm? What hope for Wilmslow?
He and his fellow Conservative councillors on WTC believe, or would have Wilmslow residents believe, that the WTC's total absence from the Inspector's public hearing is good for Wilmslow, after all they have had chats with CEC, thefore, he says, there was no need to appear and present before the Inspector.
We know that other town & parish councils had similar conversations with CEC but, nonetheless, they felt is absolutely necessary to make their own particular cases before the Inspector and in public.
WTCs absence from the hearings shows either gross negligence on its management's part or it has bought CECs arguments hook, line & sinker or it really believes that it does not have strong arguments to put to the Inspector, contrary to so many other councils.
Whilst WTC tells the people of Wilmslow that it is against development of the Green Belt for housing at Royal London, as does the ward Cheshire East councillor, both WTC and he are all for "commercial" development on the Green Belt at Royal London. Either they want to protect the Green Belt or they do not but by stating they see no problem with developing some of it for "commercial" they are in fact pushing the Trojan horse fore square into the arena.
The voters of Wilmslow may be justly proud to know that Residents of Wilmslow's two councillors took a very active part in the Inspector's hearings, alongside a powerfull Residents of Wilmslow team. We made our points, we aired our concerns as did other groups of residents and councils. But not Wilmslow Town Council nor any of the town's Conservative CEC councillors.
The question voters should be asking of the town's combined force of Conservative councillors is why were you not there?
Meanwhile, back at Westfield (CEC's Sandbach offices), a high degree of fact manipulation continues.
1) CEC tells the world that Stockport's damning planning officer's statement, on the final afternoon of the hearing, that no actual conversations had been held by CEC with his authority over the vast increase in traffic volumes into Stockport along the A34 should CEC's plan for destroying the Handforth East Green Belt go ahead (2300 homes there, plus 600 in Ponyton, with at least up to 900 in Wilmslow). No conversation about large increases from CEC along the A555 airport road. These are Stockport's roads.
Stockport "withdrew" the statement at CECs request, as I am reliably informed from SMBC.
2) Cllr Bailey tells us that more vehicles drive into Cheshire East in the mornings than go towards Manchester. Traffic surveys etc show this to be an absolute reversal of the facts. (of course, what goes one way in the morning, goes the opposite way later in the day). But this distortion is to try to "prove" that CEC is the hub of employment in the south Manchester area.
3) CEC's leader & his followers have consistently asserted the reason for the Inspector sending their plan back for further consideration in December 2014, was due to RoW and other elements who suggested urgent alterations. However, CEC consistently ignored us and others in its haste to get the LP before the Inspector last year. As the Inspector quite forcibly stated, it is CECs plan, not his, not RoWs, simply it is CECs. A good maxim at such times is not to shoot the messenger - it is your message alone, CEC.
4) And coming down the track is the HS2 train, arriving at a Crewe station in 9 years time or earlier. This, we are told by the resigning leader of the council, will mean a further 100,000 homes needed. This obviously changes the nature of the Local Plan. Include these requirements, RoW and others say. No, it will not go in the Plan, CEC say. So we plan goes forward ignoring the hurtling train coming down the tracks. Do they clearly understand and appreciate the scale of damage this ruling elite will be doing to Cheshire East or are they so fixated on today and blindly hope tomorrow will never dawn.
The point of these four points is that Row & its councillors raised these before the Inspector. Six weeks ago HS2 was not as firmly in the development cycle as it now is. If not taken into account now, irreparable damage will be done to Cheshire. It has been suggested that CEC urgently look again at its LP.
A simple look at spacial distribution in the north of the borough would show that employment land and housing in Knutsford and Poynton are more appropriate. Knutsford = M60 corridor to Liverpool = Northern Powerhouse.
Poynton = Woodford Aerodrome, the industrial estates and SEMMS.
I have stated before to CEC that 900 houses for Wilmslow = 180 commuters mostly to Manchester, because our economic growth figure yields a maximum of 720 houses.
However it doesn't matter, because Cllr Jones has told us that no more than 400 houses would be built in Wilmslow. Having said it, then it's unthinkable that he would break his word. He must have known that he had the authority to say it. If he had not, then he should have the decency to resign. He failed us. He failed WTC. If he doesn't acknowledge his error, then WTC conservatives should resign. They cannot in all conscience stay living in this, unless Cllr Jones gets 400 houses into the local plan.
However, my personal opinion is that statements made above by both WTC Councillors, and Residents of Wilmslow are both not factually correct.
Let's have a look at some.
"Wilmslow Town Council has been fully engaged with the process of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan since its first stages back in 2012."
The first stages of the "Local Plan Process" began back in November 2010
http://bit.ly/1jXc0jF
"At that time the Town Council assisted Cheshire East Council in helping to facilitate a local consultation on potential development sites in Wilmslow over the next 25 to 30 years"
The following is an extract from the Local Plan Submission Document.
"This document is the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy – Submission Version. It sets out the case for sustainable economic growth and represents the strategy the council wishes to adopt to deliver a vibrant sustainable community and for the management of development in Cheshire East up to 2030.
Councillor Keith Chapman (Wilmslow East) States
"We are opposed in principle to development of Green Belt land". Is he aware that the WTC Strategic Planning Board recommended release of Green Belt Land for employment purposes before he was elected as a councillor?
Roger Bagguley states
"Residents of Wilmslow (RoW) group who, as registered participants, have contributed to the process throughout." Again not factually correct in my opinion. It is my understanding that ROW has only existed since 2012. Not Nov 2010.
I have always been in favour of a Neighbourhood Plan and am glad to see that WTC is now looking at potentially going ahead with the process.
But Residents of Wilmslow vocally opposed the development of a Neighbourhood Plan when this was first suggested by Councillor Purdom during his first term as Chair of WTC.
http://bit.ly/1OqirE3
http://bit.ly/1P0ZwV8
What or who should we believe!
We should always seek the truth and nothing but the truth. But then again what is that?
WTC has and continues to do many good things for our town. Just wish that they could get our s106 monies under our control and a number of conservatives become independent and stand up to CEC. Giving in to 'bullies' never works. Get the gloves on WTC.
Finally, my 720 housing calculation is too high given the prevailing state of the economy. On line retailing, banking / finance administration automation will all take a far bigger toll on jobs. Science won't offset sufficiently. I'm now down to 615.
Merry Christmas all and a very Happy New Year.
It is good to know that you respect both the hard work Keith Purdom brings to WTC as well
as the efforts RoW has put in achieving its mission to protect the Green Belt. Indeed Keith is hard working. However, it is a fact Wilmslow Conservative Councillors did not participate as stakeholders in the 6 meetings with Mr Pratt, Government Inspector. In this I include four out of the five CEC Ward Councillors, the fifth one present being Toni Fox, RoW, CEC (Ind) Ward Councillor, Dean Row.
Other facts in the Local Plan process are important to helping you reach the truth:
The Local Plan that replaced documents like the Wilmslow Vision removed from the Green Belt Royal London and land along the A34 bypass, for development within the Plan period. Land south of Prestbury Road and land West of Upcast Lane was removed for safeguarding - for development beyond 2030 if required. In voting to accept the the then Plan at full Council local Councillors Rod Menlove and Gary Barton voted in favour of the removal from the Green Belt these Wilmslow sites.
Following the 6 months suspension period a further revised Plan was accepted, this time by Cabinet. This confirmed the above removal of Wilmslow Green Belt sites and this time Councillor Don Stockton spoke in support and in the presence of Rod Menlove. With an all Conservative Cabinet the vote was unanimous.
Conservative flyers in the run up to the elections in May this year told voters their potential Wilmslow Councillors were not in favour of building 75 houses on Royal London. This was an incomplete statement: In truth it should have gone on to state fact that they are in favour of commercial development on this site, offices and a hotel. We must thank Keith Purdom for clearing this matter up in his letter from the Chair - "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
You are right to state that RoW was opposed to adopting a Neighbourhood Plan in the first instance. This decision was taken on the grounds of value for money and that such a plan should be part of the Local Plan. This would have engaged WTC as key stakeholders in the process. WTC agreed at the time. RoW still has reservations but WTC has now decided to adopt a Neighbourhood Plan so it is essential RoW people are involved so as to bring their experience and knowledge to the process and so as to involve as many Wilmslow people as possible in having a say in future design of the town. Why not step forward Stuart.
I hope this helps you and others in doubt to accept that my work for RoW is always based upon facts and the truth. I will not have it any other way.