A group of local residents from South Wilmslow are campaigning for their local councillors, to reject the proposed changes to the local plan for the Upcast Lane area of town.
The revised document, which will go before Full Council for approval on Thursday, 25th February, removes the land from behind Upcast Lane through to Lindow Fold Drive from the greenbelt and redefines it as 'safeguarded for development'.
A local residents action group has reformed, having fought against previous plans to remove the Upcast Lane site from the Green Belt. They have been leafleting the area to try and make people aware of the proposed plans and to encourage them to express any concerns to councillors Barton and Brooks by Thursday, 25th February, to try and influence their vote.
In the meantime councillors Barton and Brooks have expressed concerns about the proposal and called for a review of the site.
Local residents Mr Mark and Mrs Sarah McCall said "We are devastated to find out that at a council meeting in Crewe our local councillors voted to take the Upcast Lane site out of Green Belt and reclassify it as safeguarded for future development."
Dr Max Griffiths commented "I can't understand why CEC consider the site west of Upcast Lane to be suitable for removal from the Green Belt. This site has no suitable access or local amenities to support a major increase in people living in this area, and the huge demand on the local infrastructure this sort of development will bring."
Mr Kevin Rae "Green Belt land should be preserved for current and future generations - once this is destroyed there is no going back. Green Belt land should not be sacrificed for politicians or developers greed. Changing the land in question to safeguarded for housing sends a clear message 'We will develop and we have no respect for Green Belt'."
Those campaigning to save Upcast Lane Green Belt say it is a site of ecological significance and will result on the loss of a unique rural setting for walkers, ramblers and horse riders. Additionally, they fear it will cause significant traffic congestion on roads that struggle to cope with current traffic levels, result in safety issues for school children, sports clubs and societies who use Upcast Lane facilities and they point to the lack of infrastructure to support up to 1600 additional inhabitants and hundreds of car movements a day.
Councillor Gary Barton said "Ellie and I do have strong concerns about the current draft of the local plan's proposals for the 'Safeguarded Land' by Upcast Lane. We have expressed our concerns to those at Cheshire East involved in creating the draft plan.
"Wilmslow West cannot be immune to the need Cheshire East has to identify land for development in future local plans, but I think that the section of land presently highlighted near Upcast Lane is too large and its development would put too much pressure on the surrounding area. Ellie and I have been promised a review of the site and we await the response of officers and senior councillors in CEC before making a final decision on supporting the plan."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
I would encourage anyone who is concerned about this, to get in contact with Councillors Barton and Brooks and tell them, soon the opportunity will have passed, the land will be declassified out of the Green Belt and the Developers who have been planning this for years, will just be waiting to move in and build hundreds of houses as soon as the safeguarded period is up. We have also set up a Facebook page "Save Upcast Green Belt, Wilmslow' please have a look and join in the discussions and keep up to speed with deadlines and developments and opportunities to have your say.
If you wanted to create a method so complex no one could understand it. Where confusion reigned and councils and developers could do what they wanted with total disregard to public consensus, then the Local Plan would be it.
I depressingly think this is not a co-incidence. Instead, swamp your opponents with paperwork then sneak in what you want at the last minute.
When will our politicians actually represent us though?
I have not yet my mind up yet as I am still awaiting responses from senior officers at CEC. Cllrs are also supposed to remain open minded about decisions before we hear the full debate in Council. I will, however, find it very difficult to back the plan as it presently stands.
This is just lazy and also hugely more profitable for all developers & builders involved!
There is never any discussion or allowance within the number of houses required by development of current 'Brown Field' sites - such as Ned Yates land for example.
Nor is there any allowance within the growth figures by 'Windfall' developments which average at 25/30 houses per year. That's 420 houses alone in a 14 year period!
The site at Upcast Lane WM33, has the potential THIS THURSDAY of being confirmed as being voted out of Green Belt Status - to being 'Safe Guarded' until 2030.
Something Councillor Barton has apparently already voted in agreement to at a meeting in Crewe last year? This was without any communication what so ever to the local voting community?
The word 'Affordable' seems to have largely disappeared off the descriptions?
Not surprising when we see new developments springing up such as Adlington Road. I can't see many of our 24 year old children being able to afford new local housing at £750,000.00 - £1,000,000.00
The Growth figures allocated to the housing requirement appear hugely inflated and rather conveniently the burden of this growth appears to be at the expense of Wilmslow's Green Belt land?
I don't believe enough work is being done to explore other viable options. Come on Cheshire East these plans are untenable when looking at the level infrastructure required to support such large scale development.
Let's ask the question the other way around
Last year at the meeting in Crewe what was the over riding bit of information or evidence which meant you decided to vote to initiate that WM33 Upcast Lane lost its Green Belt status & be put forward to be Safe Guarded ?
This being against all the evidence of information we have been offering on this forum and within all the letters you may have received ?
It's disgraceful how a decision of this importance and magnitude be made with so little involvement from the local residents, the people who it will ultimately impact on the most.
Are the 'decision makers' aware of the level of resistance from the residents? I very much doubt it.
Other than financial gain for CEC, on what other grounds could this be sanctioned, is there anyone else who actually supports this?!
Being involved in Lindow Cricket Club a word we use a lot is 'legacy', how will we as a committee be remembered. Hopefully the Councillors won't be remembered as the people who made such a controversial decision to the detriment of the environment and future generations
Councillors are elected to represent the people who vote for them, they are expected to put forward the views of those people, even if those views are not what they personally support. The "responses from senior officers at CEC" are a matter of no concern whatever to those of us who live in Wilmslow.
Gary, forget the Party line; represent the people who voted you into your position. You made a grave error of judgement when you did not support the amendment which could have taken all these Wilmslow Green Belt lands out of the Local Plan. You have a chance to redeem yourself- this will be a named vote- do the right thing, just as you did when you objected to the housing-development proposed just over your back fence.
As I see it the issue over the allocated safeguarded land at Upcast Lane and Heathfield Farm, 24 hectares in all, will yield 720 houses that will form the bulk of the housing requirement in the next Local Plan (2030-2050). There is no mathematics to either justify this level of safeguarding or to support my hypothesis but I say this because CEC does not want to redraw the boundaries of the Green Belt until 2045, presumably as part of the upcoming new Plan. Given they assert there is little brownfield potential in Wilmslow then the safeguarded sites this time round will be the only ones no longer in the Green Belt - taken out in 2016. My advice to CEC, for what it is worth, is to greatly reduce the level of safeguarding now. This along with there being one site too many sites allocated to immediate development and much more than the required 10 hectares taken out of the Green Belt for job creation could just be the reason Mr Pratt (Government Inspector) decides this local Plan is not sound: Too much land being taken out of the Green Belt.
I can assure you that the party line will not determine my vote on this issue. I have been a Wilmslow resident for all but 18 months of my life so looking out for Wilmslow's interests matters to me more than any political association.
As to the time scale of the process recently. I cannot defend it. It has been deeply trying for local Cllrs as well as local residents. There will be further public consultation if full Council accepts the proposed draft of the plan on Friday - although I accept few will see this as any consolation.
Wilmslow has been more protected than most areas from new development in this local plan and any safeguarded land cannot be built on during the lifetime of this plan. We cannot expect Wilmslow to be immune. The idea of wrapping Wilmslow in greenbelt was to make sure that the decision of where to build is not solely in the hands of developers - and it isn't. The inspector has told CEC that Wilmslow needs to provide its share of safeguarded land so CEC risks the whole plan being rejected if that is ignored.
However, this does not mean that a single large area should be designated - and especially not an area that plays an important part in separating Wilmslow from Chorley Village - such as the fields near Upcast Lane.
One has little confidence with the 'here today and gone tomorrow' planners who have allowed disasters to happen… a building with front parking to be positioned directly outside Wilmslow station, an area intended for commuters and their cars. Parking at Wilmslow is ludicrous and this sloppy planning could never appear on the continent. Could these be 'closed-door' agreements? We therefore cannot trust council meeting 'hot-air' which has so badly gone wrong in the past. But here is not the column to detail it.
Objection to changing Green Belt status is of paramount importance to anyone who respects British heritage.
I would ask Gary to site the document number in the Examination Library in which the Inspector made this comment - it is one I have not seen. What the Inspector did state in his interim views (Document PS A017b) just prior to the suspension of the Examination was:
"........further work is needed to justify the spatial distribution of development, including addressing the development needs of settlements in the north of the district" - no mention of Wilmslow,
and,
"The process and evidence relating to the proposed amendments to the Green Belt boundary in the north of the district seem flawed, particularly the release of sites from the Green Belt and the provision of Safeguarded Land......."
Cllr Toni Fox - Independent
Dean Row Ward
The phrase 'the north of the district' is a reference to Wilmslow (as well as Knutsford and Poynton). This is a constant throughout the documentation.
To quote: "The limited amount of new housing proposed in Green Belt settlements such as Poynton, Knutsford and Wilmslow is very contentious; the proposed levels of housing at these settlements will not meet their needs, and insufficient consideration seems to have been given to how these needs will be met." He later continued further work is needed "particularly to address the development needs and opportunities of the Green Belt settlements in the north of the district."
In the guarded language of these communications, this is, regrettably, a clear requirement for CEC to release more Green Belt land in Wilmslow. Other discussions between CEC and the Inspector have confirmed his belief of the need to release more land for housing in Wilmslow.
The development at Handforth East is designed to lessen the need to add more housing/people/cars onto already over busy roads/amenities.
Whilst Wilmslow is part of the "North" - I say this because the submitted plan failed to make it clear that Congleton, for example, was being treated as part of the South of the borough, Cheshire East's own documentation (yes - I have read it all) - makes it clear that Wilmslow does not have the same "problems" of the other northern towns. It's age ratio is the second youngest in Cheshire East after Crewe, and its housing rental market is strong. In other words it does not have the same problems as Knutsford or Poynton. Furthermore, it is absolutely clear that the Council treat Wilmslow and Handforth as one place and not two. When this is factored in it means that the age profile actually falls further and because Handforth has a high level of affordable housing then this requirement is met.
The Inspector is not writing the plan. He makes it clear that it is not his job to do so. His job is to ensure that what Cheshire East produces- that all the strands match and that the evidence base submitted supports it. Hence, there can be no "clear requirement" to do so. Please point me to the documentation which suggests that Cheshire East has considered "all options" in the North?
All these discussions carry on as if these developments had never happened.
On the basis of the Adlington Road experience it seems likely that Heathfield Farm will be nodded through by the 'Planning' Committee and there will be almost no natural green space left anywhere in Dean Row.
I couldn't agree more but unfortunately the Local Plan concerns future projected "needs" as "determined" by the majority led Conservative Council.
It is not yet clear what impact the new development at Adlington Road, and the 950 new houses in Woodford, will have on the Dean Row area however the Council proposes a further development off Dean Row Road.
I might add that as the Ward Councillor for the Dean Row Ward I have not been consulted by the Council on any of the proposed changes to the Local Plan, or, the inclusion of Heathfield Farm as a site allocation.
With regards to planning applications there are three planning committees at Cheshire East Council - Northern Planning (on which I sit), Southern Planning and the Strategic Planning Board that considers larger developments.
These committees are made up of councillors from all party's proportionate to the overall numbers of each. Consequently the Conservatives have far more councillors on each of these committees, and indeed on Full Council, at which the decision will be made tomorrow whether to approve the proposed changes to the Local Plan - and let us not forget the party whip.
As an Independent Councillor I am unfettered by party politics. I represent the views of the residents who made their position regarding developments in the Dean Row area very clear when they elected me over the Conservative candidate in May. Residents such as yourself are making your views very clear again and I will represent and support you.
Cllr Toni Fox - Independent
Dean Row Ward