Have your say on proposals for new residential development off Cumber Lane

"The development has been designed with high sustainability credentials including photovoltaic panels on the roof slopes of every house and all properties will benefit from the provision of Electric Vehicle Charging. Vehicular and pedestrian access is proposed from Cumber Lane and connections to surrounding public rights of way are achieved."

Yet *only* a 35-40 minute walk from Wilmslow Railway Station so not at all sustainable in terms of location. Another minimum of 540 private vehicle movements each day through south Wilmslow.

As I understand it, this site and Heathfield Farm were safeguarded in this Local Plan, so that in 2030 Cheshire East will not need to extend the Green Belt boundaries. I remember well the discussions Residents of Wilmslow (RoW) had with the then Council leaders. It is appreciated the Government is currently revising planning legislation so as to achieve 1.5 million homes during the course of this parliament but this is not a reason for Cheshire East to desert the foundations of their current Local Plan and allow speculative developers to cause further unnecessary harm to our Green Belt.

As yet, the changes being brought to planning by the government are unknown. It is not yet known where the extra houses will be built across the whole of the borough. Thus, this is not the time to be giving away any of Cheshire East's safeguarded land. Around Wilmslow there are a number of brown sites and pockets offering conversion to grey if absolutely necessary.

Please respond to this consultation as the first step towards objecting to the proposed development of this and all other safeguarded sites.

You’re havin a laugh !
135 new dwellings ! 200 plus more cars , hundreds more for the health centre, schools, refuse collection ( what’s left ). Another two years of roads which were built for horse and carts , pounded with overloaded monster trucks, more potholes, more dig ups. What for ? Short term profit to leave a generational legacy of further overdevelopment in an area already losing its priceless green spaces . The limited road accesses to this small area are already choked, and have become worse with stealthily developed new housing. Roads which are falling to bits, pavements same, and overgrown , ……cars vans and trucks parking where they like. Try running the already overloaded gauntlet of the two main access roads and dangerous road junctions to this Lane on a Friday afternoon, especially when the kids are out of school, dog walkers all over the place, bikes, the lot. It’s already very dangerous.
Maybe when all the green spaces are concreted over, there will be a few grass verges left on Cumber Lane, which are not parked on or mashed up by vans , these “ developers” , could build high rise affordable bedsits on the verges. I,m sure the Council will be ok with that.
It’s amazing how these types as well as councils bulldoze through people’s lives for the sake of greed, not only here , but around the world, and it cant be stopped, even when it’s blatantly obvious that it should be.
Tragic.

Remember when we had a green belt?

I suspect this is almost a nailed-on certainty to be approved by planning so I'm not sure what residents giving their opinions will achieve, but for what it's worth:
I think it's fair to say local residents will be much more concerned about another 200+ cars using the already extremely busy Chapel Lane, Cumber Lane, Moor Lane and Buckingham Roads than they will be about solar panels or EV chargers or so-called "high sustainability credentials", (No, me neither)
This could well be the first of 2 or 3 housing projects in that area of South Wilmslow, by Bellway and/or other developers, as shown on the layout map as "potential future connections to further phases" and access to "safeguarded land".
Expect road chaos to result.

There are 12,000 people looking for housing in Cheshire alone. 14,000 in Trafford. I agree we need additional school places, GP surgeries etc to service the additional people. Lots of comments on brown field sites but not sure where they are that could provide this level of housing. I love green space but there needs to be compromise.

It's about time there was an official definition of "affordable" homes. £300K plus is not affordable for most first time buyers. The only new houses being built in the area are for those who already have one to play musical chairs with.

Would like to know where Rachel's figures come from? Think Julie hits the nail on the head. Six bedroom houses on the Cumber Lane site does not relate to homeless people on the streets, not even those in lower paid jobs.

Pete is right. Buckingham Road, Chapel Lane, Moor Lane and Cumber Lane residents are fed up to the back teeth of hundreds of HGV movements brought by the Lowood Development. These roads are close to being saturated. Also, they are being wrecked by constant breakdown of infrastructure and the repairs. I do not believe these local roads coming together at a single access is a good idea at all. This, not just for 135 houses but, more like circa 400 should this be approved.

Let Bellwood know in their consultation you do not want their houses right now on this safeguarded site, or any other safeguarded land. Then, we await the full application when we object on the CEC Planning Portal.

Are we saving the planet or building at any cost?

Whilst Cheshire East crow endlessly about their ambitious nett zero targets, our green spaces are being destroyed forever.

They're so inefficient they can't deliver adequate service levels and despite their exceptionally high council tax charges, they're still losing money.

Unless CEC can operate efficiently, every new resident represents another financial loss for the council.

Page 32 LPS 59
https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/planning/spatial-planning/cheshire_east_local_plan/site-allocations-and-policies/sadpd-examination/documents/examination-library/ed02-draft-adopted-policies-map.pdf

Safeguarded Land LPS 59: Land at Upcast Lane / Cumber Lane, Wilmslow
15ha of safeguarded land footnote 93 .
Site Specific Principles of Development
This site is not allocated for development at the present time.
Justification
15.685 This site is situated to the south-western edge of Wilmslow. Surrounding land uses include residential and open countryside.

15.686 Paragraph 85 of the NPPF requires authorities to identify safeguarded land to meet longer-term development needs beyond the plan period.

15.687 Development has encroached onto the north-west of the site, limiting its role in preventing urban sprawl, and there are strong boundaries to the south and west. It is well-connected to the existing settlement to the north and east, and would constitute a natural extension to Wilmslow.

15.688 There are a number of potential access points to this land which would enable it to be developed at a future point in time.

(Footnote 93) The site boundary as shown on the plan extends to 17ha but the area occupied by existing buildings and their curtilages on Moor Lane, Clay Lane and Leigh Road (2 ha) has been deducted from the total area of safeguarded land as these are existing buildings and may not be available for development in the future.

Policy information
Policy name: Safeguarded Land LPS 59 'Land at Upcast Lane / Cumber Lane, Wilmslow'
Development plan document: Local Plan Strategy (PDF, 26.0MB)
Date adopted: 27 July 2017

The Doctors surgeries are already inundated, and can hardly cope with more patients, it is difficult enough to get an appointment as it is , and to be able to discuss your symptoms with a Doctor in a reasonable time frame , we have been with our surgery for 30 years and have noted with dismay , the increase in the number of patients , it has to stop at some point , and the housing explosion won’t help !

I agree with others but especially the arguments raised Messrs Bagguley & Taylor against this speculative & greedy proposal from Bellway Homes. 5.43hectares equals 13.42acres. With 135 dwellings on the site, each property would have a footprint of 4,356 square feet of GB land. This is not an insignificant plot of Green Belt land to be used to provide 41 affordable dwellings.
This GB land was included in the CEC Local Plan as safeguarded, for possible future development as and when need arises after the expiry of the current Local Plan, sometime early in the 2030's. The current Local Plan was agreed on the basis that there were sufficient new build agreements in place across the borough to satisfy the immediate and projected demand. The safeguarding of land is a "weasel term" that can be exploited by speculative greedy developers especially if nobody raises an objection and the planners are asleep.
The current HM Gov issue of the National Planning Policy Framework, Item 13 (Protecting GB land), section 147, states that "inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the
Green Belt & should not be approved except in very special circumstances". There are no such very special circumstances to justify this speculative proposal to build 135 dwellings on 5.43 hectares of Green Belt land. In addition, the NPPF states that the openness of the Green Belt land should not be closed down.
I will respond to the Bellway Homes consultation.

@Julie Green

Affordable dictionary definition should not be confused with Govt and NPF definition of affordable...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-homes-fact-sheet-9-what-is-affordable-housing/fact-sheet-9-what-is-affordable-housing

...Homes let at least 20% below local market rents (affordable rental properties) or let at rates set between market rents and social rents (intermediate rental properties)..

...This can include Shared Ownership, whereby homes are sold at a discounted rate (at least 20% below market value) and homes referred to as being ‘Rent to Buy’...

...The NPPF requires that at least 10% of new homes in major residential developments are for affordable home ownership...

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossary

Starter homes are not cost effective for developers hence shared equity plans.

You raise a valid point ... How do first time buyers get on the property ladder ??....

No answers here...

The UK needs to build more homes and the services provisions required. It’s quite simple. No one wants them in their backyard but everyone knows they need building.

People will always provide a reason to object to every development. Change is hard. Embrace it.

Are you a builder Ryan ?

My comments submitted earlier today were:
I am not supportive of this development
It is a speculative development based on the presumption that the NPPF will be modified sometime in 2025.
On the 25th of November, I emailed you and asked the following question.
I’ve been made aware of the public consultation event. Your website says that it is a development of 135 new dwellings, including 2-6 bedroom properties with 30% being affordable housing. but gives no detail of the breakdown. Please provide a breakdown on the number and type of each property including whether they will be open market or affordable housing.
On the 29th of November, you responded as follows:
Thanks for your email. Those details aren't yet available I'm afraid but would form part of the application once submitted which will have its own consultation period.
Best regards

Louisa -------
Associate Director
AshtonHale

However, the information on consultation board 3 suggests the following housing mix.
1 bed apartment = 1
2 bed apartment = 2
2 bed terraced town house = 24
3 bed terraced town house = 9
3 bed semi detached = 8
3 bed detached = 13
4 bed semi detached = 2
4 bed detached = 54
5 bed detached = 16
6 bed detached = 6


Detached = 89 (66%)
Semi Detached = 10 (7%)
Terraced Town House = 33 (25%)
Apartment = 3 (2%)
The mix of housing proposed is completely wrong for the needs of Wilmslow's future growth.
You have also failed to provide information on which dwellings will be offered as open market or affordable housing.
The off road parking provision on driveways (etc) excluding garage spaces = 309. This development is therefore expected to be heavily reliant in cars and hence not a sustainable development.
Based on this, my opinion of this consultation is that you are being disingenuous with the truth and cannot be trusted.

Common sense would say the area can’t take more houses and hundreds more cars not to mention the tons of trucks while the building works goes on.
The roads around South Wilmslow are already falling apart and never get repaired properly.
Difficult to get an appointment at the doctors also!
If they are going to keep on building more and more houses you have to improve and provide adequate schools, roads and services.

@chris
No I am not and so what if i am. You should be thanking me.

I am a realist to issues faced by the UK with housing under supply, a burgeoning population and the generational problems caused by NIBYISM and kicking the can down the road by successive governments.

The facts remain irrespective of your attempt to spin my comments and somehow try to degrade my comments through humour or a cynical attempt to infer self interest.

We need to build more homes. No one wants them. Some communities just state this ….clearly and explicitly, others vehemently oppose all developments, others pontificate whilst citing reams of contractions, rules, planning policies and the good old cast iron objection “it lacks affordable homes”. I guarantee, if this site was all affordable homes. It would be opposed.

Nice to chat. More homes are needed. No one can remotely deny this is a serious issue. No one wants them in their backyard. It takes 6 months to get a simple planning application through Cheshire east for an extension. It’s a joke. Just like most of their other policies, made worse by those of successive governments.

Best regards
Ryan

Seems to me that Air BnB is a significant part of this apparent shortage. That and second home ownership.

@pete. Perhaps. But more homes are needed. It’s hardly rocket science.

This indeed involves change across the all of our cities, towns and villages. No one wants them. Everyone knows they need building.

The government should just get on with it and remove the layers of bureaucracy it’s bestowed upon us. 6 months for a simple planning application for house extension. I rest my case. Outdated. Bureaucratic. Outrageous inefficient absurd and downright ridiculous.