After an all day debate on Friday, 26th February, the Full Council agreed that the revised Local Plan Strategy (LPS) be approved for public consultation.
Of the 82 Cheshire East councillors, 74 attended the meeting with 53 councillors voting for the plan, 2 against and 17 abstained.
Wilmslow's five Cheshire East Councillors certainly didn't agree on the controversial revised Local Plan with two voting in favour, one against and two abstaining from the vote.
Conservative councillors Rod Menlove (Wilmslow East Ward) and Don Stockton (Lacey Green Ward) voted in favour, whilst Councillor Toni Fox (Dean Row Ward) of Residents of Wilmslow voted against and Conservative councillors Gary Barton and Ellie Brooks (Wilmslow West & Chorley) abstained.
Following Friday's vote, I contacted each councillor to ask about their reasons for voting as they did.
Councillors Menlove and Stockton issued the following statement "Your Conservative councillors have over recent years argued against suggested inclusions to the Plan that we consider not in the interests of local residents.
"On Friday Rod's proposed amendment that the land opposite the Royal London site be excluded from the Plan was defeated. Advice to councillors from senior planning officers regarding the amendment was that if this site was not included it could put the whole Plan at risk. The same applied to Don's proposed amendment on Little Stanneylands.
"We voted defensively to ward off further developer unwanted speculative planning applications; these have blighted many green field areas across Cheshire East. Had the Plan not been passed to consultation then it could be years more of unplanned, unwelcome development.
"The absolute number of dwellings for Wilmslow at 900 does not seem unreasonable. Over the 20 year period it is only 45 a year and that is a small percentage on the base number of 11,100 (2011 census). From 2010 to date the figure for built/permissioned is 400 leaving a balance of only 500 to 2030.
"None of us want to see our green fields lost so we urge local residents to respond to the consultation. Don and I have voted to give residents the further chance to make their views known and we urge them to do so. They now have the opportunity to answer that most difficult of questions 'if it is not to be those sites itemised in the Plan then where?"
Councillor Toni Fox said "At the Full Council meeting held on Friday to consider the proposed amendments to the Local Plan I put forward an amendment for the site allocation of Heathfield Farm to be removed. Regrettably that proposed amendment did not receive sufficient support and was lost. I voted against the Local Plan as a whole in support of the residents I represent and who have contacted me to state their opposition to this sites release from the Green Belt.
"The Heathfield Farm site that is proposed for development has been allocated in two parcels.
"CS62 (the smaller parcel) is put forward for immediate release from the Green Belt for development of around 150 new homes and should "utilise the existing access of the Dean Row Road/Handforth Road roundabout as the main point of access". This site runs alongside Browns Lane (leading to Pinewood Road) and adjacent to Dean Row Road.
"CS63 (the larger parcel) is put forward for immediate release from the Green Belt and the 9 hectares of land is to be safeguarded for future use (anticipated for release after 2030 – although of this there is no guarantee.) This site continues further down Browns Lane up to, and north of, Cross Lane, and again adjacent to Dean Row Road.
"It is interesting to note that the Site Specific Principles of Development relating to CS62 specifically states "Any development that would prejudice the potential for future development of the adjacent safeguarded land (Site ref CS63) will not be permitted", and, "Proposals should consider the option of a future link to Pinewood Road in any future phrases of development on the safeguarded land". The traffic implications of the nearby Bollin Park development on Adlington Road and the neighbouring large development on the former Bae site in Woodford are not yet clear on what are already congested local roads in the Dean Row area.
"I also have serious concerns that no clear indication has been provided by the Council in the Local Plan of any mitigation measures that will be provided in respect of local services, particularly education, given that Wilmslow High School has been oversubscribed for a number of years. Residents have clearly stated to me that they do not wish the Council to remove this land from the Green Belt and as their representative I supported their views at the Full Council meeting and will continue to do so."
Toni added "I would urge residents to make their views known to the Council during the upcoming six week public consultation period as this will be last opportunity afforded to them to do so. Unfortunately it is my view that it is highly unlikely that Cheshire East Council will make any significant changes, such as removing the Heathfield Farm site from the Local Plan, as to do so would make the Local Plan itself "unsound" before the Inspector who would have no alternative other than to reject it for future resubmission again.
"However, if the process follows previous submissions, I understand that resident's views given during this consultation will be made available to the Inspector when he considers the overall Plan, and will inform his decision. It is really important that residents make their views known at this vital stage."
Cllr Gary Barton said "Ellie and I proposed an amendment to the Local Plan that would have reduced the amount of safeguarded land near Upcast Lane/Cumber Lane by around 50%. I was in fact reprimanded by the Mayor for being too forthright in my criticism of the process during Friday's meeting. Unfortunately we were not able to gain support for our amendment.
"As a result, neither Ellie nor I supported the plan. We both understand the need to have a plan in place as without one we are increasingly vulnerable to speculative development. Large applications have already gone through on appeal elsewhere in the borough. Despite this fact, we could not support a plan that had failed to take into account very reasonable concerns from local residents.
"The changes we requested were minor when compared to the plan as a whole, however, the Planning Inspector had told Cheshire East that there needed to be more 'safeguarded' land in Wilmslow and he had also highlighted the land at Upcast Lane as a suitable location. The land will not be able to be developed until at least 2030 and the remaining Green Belt land will not be able to be reviewed until at least 2045. Nevertheless, we both still firmly disagree with the Inspector's assessment of the site at Upcast Lane."
Cllr Barton added "There will still be a chance for residents to comment on the plan during a six week public consultation process to happen in the near future. I do not know how likely it is that any significant changes will be made, but I would still urge all residents to request that the land nearest Upcast Lane be left as Green Belt to protect nearby houses, Lindow School and the sports clubs, and to maintain the green gap between Wilmslow and Chorley Village. Ellie and I would like to thank all the residents who have contacted us over the last week or so."
The revised Local Plan proposes that 900 homes be provided in Wilmslow along with 10 ha of Employment land (an increase from 400 homes and 8 ha in the submitted plan). As at 30 September 2015, there had been 87 houses completed within the plan period and 312 committed.
The one area of safeguarded land from previous Local Plans (land at Adlington Road) has now obtained consent and is under construction. Therefore to meet future needs additional allocations are proposed, all of which require amendment of the Green Belt boundary. It is proposed to maintain the allocation at Royal London for mixed use but to include land west of Alderley Road within the developable area. This will now provide for around 175 homes and 5 ha of employment land.
Further housing allocations are now proposed at Little Staneylands and Heathfield Farm. The former will accommodate around 150 homes on land off Stanneylands Road, situated adjacent to the Dean Valley. Heathfield Farm at Dean Row Road is located on the eastern edge of the town and will accommodate around 150 homes. It will be accessed by the existing roundabout. The remainder of this land; extending to some 9 ha towards Cross Lane will be safeguarded for future development after the end of the plan period.
A further area of safeguarded Land is proposed between Upcast Lane and Cumber Lane, this extends to approximately 15 ha, and it is proposed once again to allocate land west off the A34 close to Wilmslow High School for employment use.
The revised plan proposes that 2,200 homes be provided in Handforth along with 22 ha of Employment land. As at 30 September 2015, there had been 63 houses completed within the plan period and 322 units committed.
The proposals are for 1650 homes and 12 ha of employment land at the North Cheshire Growth Village, located off the A34 Bypass and bordered to the north by the A555 (Manchester Airport Eastern Link Road), and 250 homes on land at Sagars Road. 14ha of land south of the Growth Village is also proposed for safeguarding – for development after 2030.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
In their attempts to have Upcast Lane split into two as before Councillors Barton and Brooks clearly wanted land behind Green Villa Park to be left in the Green Belt with land behind Cumber Lane and Lindow Fold Drive removed from the Green Belt to be safeguarded for development beyond 2030. As with others I liked Councillor Don Stockton's amendment that will give the people in Carlton Avenue some visual protection should Little Stanneylands be developed. The allocation here is for 200 houses. By voting in favour of the Plan as it is going forward to public consultation both Councillors Stockton and Menlove have voted to have all of the allocated sites removed from the Green Belt. By withholding their votes Councillors Barton and Brooks may be seen to have gone some way towards representing the views of their electorate but failed to convince by not voting against as both Conservative councillors from Poynton did.
Councillors Barton and Brooks clearly know something others don't know. I can't find any evidence in the Local plan library to confirm their statement that Mr Pratt, Government Inspector, has recommended Upcast Lane be allocated to safeguarding. Indeed, it is my understanding Mr Pratt has nothing to say about which sites are to be selected at this stage and may never do so.
The Plan allocates 950 houses to Wilmslow, already 50 over the target. It allocates 720 houses for 2030 and beyond. Think definitely in 2030 as there will be no redrawing of the Green Belt boundaries until 2045 and, according to Cheshire East, their is very little brownfield potential to exploit. Given that over 1000 houses can be built in Wilmslow by 2030 it is clear at least one of the allocated sites can be removed from the Plan. Toni Fox apart, it seems our councillors are content with the number of houses. The question is raised by one that if you remove one site you have to replace it with another. What a nonsense when there is clearly an over provision.
We have to be frightened of developers running riot if the Plan is rejected they say. Not so; in our area where we will still have Green Belt protection. What we do need to be worried about is that it is impossible for Cheshire East to meet their annual building rate to be on track by 2018, then to have completed 36,000 houses by 2030. All developers are warning about this. It will not be the lack of a Plan that will kill us off in the north of the Borough but the lack of a five year supply.
I could go on. Just one plea to our Conservative councillors: Please just tell it as it is. You are causing some confusion by trying to please both those who have written complaining to you and a council very sure of itself and refusing to be phased as their Plan goes forward. Note I say "Their Plan," not Mr Pratt's!
I agree with your comment about over-provisioning in Wilmslow - a point I raised during the meeting and in various discussions before the meeting. This is why I tabled the amendments I did. I also supported a number of other minor changes suggested by other Cllrs that again would have made relatively minor concessions that would have meant a lot to local residents. However, the planning advice from CEC's officers was clear that these changes were highly likely to be rejected by the Inspector - it is he (via the Minister of State) who has the final say on the plan. Also, as you know, the figure of 900 houses is a minimum number that CEC is required to find space for.
That is as it is, and I completely understand why most people don't like it - I don't like it either.
Going back to last Friday and the passion you put into your deliveries re Upcast Lane and land west of Alderley Road you clearly indicated sufficient objection to what is being proposed to have voted against the Plan moving forward, as your colleagues from Poynton did. Like them you and your fellow Conservative councillors were elected on your caring for the Green Belt. You were all opposed to the 75 houses proposed for Royal London but did not at the time own up to supporting offices and a hotel on this site. On Friday not one of you raised issue about around 100 houses now allocated to this site and not one of you raised any issues about in excess of 10 hectares of land being allocated to employment. All land being taken from the Green Belt.
I do think you and Ellie care about what is happening but not enough for you to stand firm as Toni Fox is doing and will continue to do so. In your circumstances I would resign and re-emerge as Independent RoW candidates in the forced local election. How about it?
You are supposed to be representing us. Silence is not an option.
The Menlove/Stockton statement does not make any sense: "We voted defensively to ward off further developer unwanted speculative planning applications; these have blighted many green field areas across Cheshire East. Had the Plan not been passed to consultation then it could be years more of unplanned, unwelcome development." Not true, by maintaining Green Belt status no speculative planning applications could have been approved. Now that this protection has been removed the unwelcome developers have been given an open goal.
"None of us want to see our green fields lost so we urge local residents to respond to the consultation". We already did respond to a consultation: thousands of us made our views clear in the Wilmslow Vision exercise, you did not listen.
"Don and I have voted to give residents the further chance to make their views known and we urge them to do so." Nonsense: we did not need you to vote to scrap the Green Belt in order to make our views known!
As for the possibility of the Local Plan being rejected again- if it is not fit for purpose then it should be rejected, we need the Right Plan, not just Any Plan.
For example ""On Friday Rod's proposed amendment that the land opposite the Royal London site be excluded from the Plan was defeated. Advice to councillors from senior planning officers regarding the amendment was that if this site was not included it could put the whole Plan at risk,,,," Deleting 80 homes from what was promised, by both the then Leader Michael Jones & The Chancellor, George Osborne MP, in one of their meetings with RoW that this would be protected "Green Space", would not "put the whole Plan at risk". Come on! Get real - the WHOLE PLAN AT RISK!!!! I ask you? But no, our weak & infective councillors allow planners to push this rubbish and then regurgitate it as a real threat to the whole, the total, CE plan.
The other reorientation of the Inspector's views is that he himself has insisted on particular sites. CEC's planners have consistently & persistently thrown out the untruth that the selected sites are the Inspector's choice. This fabrication is then regurgitated by our unthinking, unknowledgeable, unquestioning councillors that it is not CECs plan but his. Mr. Pratt, the Inspector, stated on numerous occasions during his examination fortnight in October that CE must take note that "it is the Council's plan, not mine" - I know this as I was there. But none of our Wilmslow Conservative CE councillors were. They've accepted the dubious, self protecting deliberate misinterpretation of the council's propagandising
The two councillors above go on to say " Had the Plan not been passed to consultation then it could be years more of unplanned, unwelcome development." Possibly but the trouble with the Plan goes right back to the beginning - RoW told Cllr Jones & the Head of Planning (Adrian Fisher) some three years ago that their plan was "unsafe" & would fail. They chose to ignore our advice refusing to rethink. Conservative councillors just didn't want to back RoW; with their help this could have been avoided but they just didn't have the gumption. And this is what we have today.
Of Wilmslow's CE councillors, only Toni Fox stands out as a beacon of protecting the town. The rest, to a greater or lesser degree, are in thrall to their party and are not prepared to support and protect the town.
It becomes ever more obvious that Wilmslow desperately needs others of independent mind to join RoW and do battle at the ballot box - other independent voices up and down the borough are now proven by the Conservatives to be needed to truly defend our towns & villages.
T
A very interesting point you make but next time round you and yours need to meet first with RoW so as to agree strategy. Had you not fielded a paper candidate in Wilmslow East then it is likely those who voted Green would have voted for the RoW agenda and David Jefferay would today be Cheshire East Ward Councillor. Not Rod Menlove. It was a very close run thing.
Next time round will just about coincide with the bulldozers carving up the Green Belt and all else that goes with mass development. Just the time when people might be totally fed up enough to change the way they vote.
http://ind.pn/1TPXJnn