Wilmslow's Conservative Cheshire East councillors have announced they are backing the Local Plan, following the Council's unveiling of the development sites they are proposing for inclusion in the final document.
Councillors Gary Barton, Wesley Fitzgerald, Rod Menlove, Don Stockton and Paul Whiteley have described the outcome as "Victories achieved for Wilmslow in a no-win situation" and issued the following statement:
"The local plan is one the most important tasks that Cheshire East Council has yet undertaken. Balancing the needs of a growing population, changing living habits and the need for affordable housing against a desire to protect our green spaces is a daunting challenge. In a desirable area such as Wilmslow, this is even more difficult as our town is very much in developers' crosshairs.
"Market surveys have stated that Cheshire East as a whole requires more than 27,000 new homes to be built by 2030, and the same surveys recommended that 1,300 homes should be built in Wilmslow over the same period.
"Developers have sought a much higher number. We are satisfied that the campaigning by Conservative Councillors in Wilmslow has ensured that the Local Plan will recommend only 400 houses should be built in our town over the 20 year period of the plan. We are also delighted that the land off Alderley Road opposite Royal London will be listed as a protected green space.
"The plan ensures that the land behind Cumber Lane will be safeguarded from development during its life, despite ongoing planning applications from developers. The development on the land off Adlington Road is a difficult position and one largely dictated by decisions made over 20 years ago. However, accepting development on this land has enabled Cheshire East to protect large sections of green belt land around Wilmslow.
"Your Conservative Councillors have also ensured that there will be no further major developments in Dean Row. We will continue to campaign for brown field sites to be considered ahead of any new housing developments on the green belt, and remain opposed to the building of houses at Royal London.
"It has never been an option for Cheshire East to say 'no' to development in Wilmslow. Cheshire East has one of the highest rates of single occupancy of four+ bedroom houses in the UK. Increased family breakdown also means fewer people living in existing properties and creates a need for more one and two bedroom homes to be built. If we had proposed a 'zero' house building policy for Wilmslow, this would have been utterly rejected by the Planning Inspectors – a rejection that would have given free rein to developers.
"We understand the impact new developments can have on existing homes, and we also understand that residents want their children to be able to buy homes in Wilmslow in the future. It is never possible to achieve a perfect result. However, the work and campaigning by Conservative Councillors has given Wilmslow one of the lowest allocations of new housing in Cheshire East and this plan goes a long way to protecting our precious green spaces."
Click here to view a copy of the "Emerging Core Strategy" which contains further information and maps showing all the proposed development sites. (Please note this is a large file and may take a while to download.)
Map showing the proposed development sites in Wilmslow. Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordinance survey 100049045.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
If RoW’s idea is to build as many houses as possible on every bit of available brown field land then Wilmslow’s housing will become more and more compacted and the character of Wilmslow will be irrevocably changed anyway. Wilmslow is tightly surrounded by green belt land thanks to work done by Macclesfield Borough Council. This gives us a strong degree of control, but it means that when any significant new housing development is considered, there will always be a small degree of creep into the green belt. The choice becomes to overcrowd or to spread out a little. However, brown field sites on top of Adlington road, in my view, should mean that there is no need for 75 houses on the Royal London site. I will be writing to the planning inspectorate to say so. I encourage all Wilmslow residents who feel the same to do so.
The highlighted Safeguarded land is definitely safe until 2030, and there is absolutely no certainty that it will be built on after 2030. The fact is that by any normal measure, Wilmslow should have been allocated a much higher number houses in this plan than it has been. We cannot rely on Wilmslow being so fortunate in the future. Furthermore, for a plan to be acceptable to the planning inspectorate, it has to begin to look beyond its own 20 remit. Row has publicly praised the work done by Wilmslow Councillors in engaging with residents and in keeping the number to 400. 400 out of a total of 27,000 is no failure.
It is possible to argue with the total number of houses to be built in Cheshire East, but Cheshire East has to work to Government guidelines and practices, which are broadly in favour of development. Ignoring this would do more harm than good. There are a couple of nearby authorities who have attempted to rush through a plan and they are now in serious difficulty. I do not want Wilmslow/Cheshire East to be in the same position.
We say a no win situation because this is an emotional issue that polarises opinion and it is not possible to please everyone in Wilmslow, let alone all 370,000 people in Cheshire East. When I knock on doors in Wilmslow, there are at least as many people wondering how young people will get onto the housing ladder as there are those strongly opposed to any significant house building schemes. Wherever new houses go, there are those who will be affected. But as someone who grew up in a house built in the 70’s and now lives in house built in the 60’s, I know that new housing development is not a new thing, and it is necessary.
I doubt many will have had the will power to have read this far, but thank you if you have. Wilmslow is my home town and causing it harm is the last thing I want to do. I am backing this plan (with one or two exceptions) not because of who proposed it, but because it is a realistic and acceptable solution to a very difficult problem that has no one ‘right’ answer.
There is a big difference between planning permission being granted (often in principle, rather than specific plans) and houses being built. There is often significant lag between permission and building. If 200 houses are given permission for a site, it can often take many years for those houses to be built.
No one can say how many houses will be given permission or built in Wilmslow by 2030, but this plan will allow is to significantly control it. That is why it is a victory in the face of significant pressure to allow 1,300+ homes to be built.
Wilmslow residents were opposed the number of 1,300 houses, rightly saying it was too high. This plan has delivered a number 69% lower. That is no failure.
How many small companies could be accommodated in Alderley Park in the space left by the AZ research facilities? How many have shown interest so far?
That is you have two options - one of which is unpalatable, while the other is downright nasty. You then reluctantly settle for the unpalatable one because, well it's better than the other. I think this has been their strategy all along. Aim high, come in low but claim it as a victory for your opponent, while you quietly pocket the difference.
However, the text books also say that the only response to this is to a firm "no thanks" to either option and insist on keeping the status quo or else you propose a third way.
We have a Tory run government (well almost), a Tory run Council and a Tory run Town Council. WTC want to blame CEC who then blames the government.
But, we all can see what the common denominator is and who to blame come the next election.
PS "Affordable Housing" in Wilmslow. Really? For how long will it be "affordable" and who says what is affordable or not? And when did anyone build anything in Wilmslow in the last decade that wasn't marketed as "Luxury....". So why will this be any different?
PPS Who actually runs our councils? Is it our elected members or is it Property Developers? Sounds like we should vote for our preferred Property Developer at the next elections as they seem to have more hold over our councils than we do.
WTC may or may not, in a couple of areas, disagree with CEC (an official response from WTC will be forthcoming, this is definitely not it, only my views), but does not mean that WTC ‘blames’ CEC. WTC knows the process. WTC was asked to try and aid consultation, and did so. RoW has publicly acknowledged this twice at WTC meetings.
If the property developer ran CEC, Wilmslow would not have been allocated as low a number as 400 houses. Personally, I don’t blame the Government either. I may not like CEC having to find places for 27,000 extra houses by 2030, but I am not expert enough on the national housing situation to be able to challenge the methods used and numbers produced. I am sure even the experts don’t agree. What I do know is that we have to work with it.
I don’t have numbers for Alderley Park available to me, but I know that discussions are going on with a number of companies that is likely in the next few years to lead to an increase in the number of people employed on the site.
Precise numbers of houses and the mix of affordable and ‘normally’ priced houses will be determined by individual applications. This plan does not deal with specific applications.
Challenging the system is fine and fair, and in some ways I agree. But to ignore realities is to let Wilmslow down. That is the situation we are in. If the population is growing and the average number of people living in each house is falling, can we deny that there is a need for new housing? Do those of us who live in houses that were once new builds on green field decide that we will deny all others the opportunity to do the same? Yes brownfield development is better, but it cannot, does not meet identified needs.
I am a resident of Wilmslow, I want what is best for Wilmslow. Challenging the need for new houses is understandable, but no one has yet offered a realistic solution. 400 houses rather than 1,300 is a victory. It shows we have thought 'outside the box'.
It is not true to say that up to now RoW has failed to come up with any significant sites. RoW has identified a number of sites, has discussed these with CEC and has taken local councillors to visit some of them taking along a CEC planning officer to offer technical advice. The problem is that CEC has so far rejected a number of them offering a variety of reasons as to why they cannot be developed. Whilst our local councillors accept these reasons RoW certainly do not and will continue to fight to have these sites developed before any Greenbelt is destroyed: Some brown on the SHLAA is now green. Development of brown sites in the Greenbelt (they call it Pepper potting) will close down the countryside more than a large development on a Greenfield site. Some sites are not currently developable - so when are they? RoW will continue to deal in facts as they fight, mathematical facts and facts when CEC fail to follow government guidelines on how the current rush for developments should be conducted (Brown before green, conversion of empty office space etc.). It is agreed there are no empty factories to exploit but there are many empty offices blighting the town and it seems more in the pipeline.
Like Gary Barton I want Wilmslow to be a better place for people to live, a quality environment. I have lived in the town for much longer than Gary and cannot say it has been an ever increasingly pleasant place to be. Quite the contrary as the town centre has decayed and much of the housing built in the last century looks old and tired. I assume I live in a house built on a once green field but I do not believe I will do any future resident of Wilmslow a favour by standing by and accepting a repeat of past mistakes.
You have stated in an earlier post that Wilmslow is the third largest town in Cheshire East.
Either you are mistaken or the information provided at section 2.2 of the following Cheshire East Document is incorrect.
CHESHIRE EAST LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - Wilmslow Snapshot Report
2.2 Wilmslow has a population of 22,530; the fourth largest of the towns in Cheshire East.
Please confirm which is correct. Your statement or the Cheshire East LDF document.
I have carried out my own analysis of new dwellings built in Wilmslow
independently of ROW. My figures are not the same as you state above. Of
course we could not be comparing like with like so would ask for the
opportunity to review each others findings at the earliest opportunity.
Do not think for one second that the residents of Dean Row will give up on Adlington Road's green fields. You have to proceed over a number of hurdles yet. Ashall Town Planning completed the Cheshire East Local Plan Evidence Base for Wilmslow Town Strategy. Every Wilmslow Resident should read this document, it agrees with every sentiment expressed by RoW and with those of you who went online and submitted your views against the overdevelopment of Wilmslow during the consultation process on the Local Plan, Cheshire East ignored your views and that of Ashall their own planning agents. Councillors you have not thought 'outside the box' you have thought inside a section 108 agreement and the council tax raked in on 200 houses in the highest Band. I am disgusted with you all.
@Steve - thanks. We do try and do our best in the situations we find ourselves in and I am always happy to respond to questions or criticism. Lord Lawson once observed that politics works best when there is a healthy amount of disagreement and therefore debate. I agree with that sentiment fully.
@Kathryn - All Councils seek contributions from developers to the improvements in local infrastructure that are needed to cope with a growing population. Would RoW prefer developers made no contribution? It would be far easier for Councils if we could say 'no' to all growth and developments, but of course we can't. No amount of section 106 income makes up for the emotional turmoil caused. No Councillor does (or should) believe otherwise. To suggest that either CEC or any Councillor is financially motivated with regards to the local plan is plain wrong, at the very least. No organisation has identified sufficient brownfield sites to accommodate 400 new houses. I am just grateful that we have not had to accommodate 1,300 houses. Nor has any other group yet been able to suggest a workable alternative that would be more favourable. It's easy to say 'no'; a realistic alternative is much harder to achieve. The Conservatives are the only major political party to have acted on Wilmslow's behalf and we achieved a 69% reduction in the required number of houses in the local plan. We are also truly grateful for the passionate support we have had from so many residents and local various groups - it has made a difference.
We have asked you to say No to developers on greenfield/green belt sites. We told you during the consultation process in our thousands all over Cheshire. We in Wilmslow are not alone it is the same in Mobberley,Knutsford, Macclesfield, Holmes Chapel,Prestbury and on and on. You are carrying out a flawed planning policy that in years to come if it is allowed to be carried out will change the face of Cheshire for ever.I realise that town councillors have little say in what the back office does within Cheshire East Council and that they in turn try to carry out the orders that policy dictates. But when it involves change for the worse to the area in which we live to the extent that this policy will, we have to do something to stop it from happening. The council elections are coming up be sure we shall start there.
One Site is easier and cheaper for the backroom boys at CEC to administer. Only 1 assessment to make mistakes in. One large s106 payment easier and cheaper to agree. The difference this time to that in the Lyme Green debacle is we are forwarned and we are forearmed.
If you do not agree that there is sufficent brownfield land to accommodate all of the 400 housing requirement, then, in your view, how many houses can be built upon brownfield sites in Wilmslow?
Thanks.
I can't help thinking this another Lyme Green fiasco on a much bigger scale.
No to 200 houses on Adlington Road;
No to 75 houses on land behind Royal London and to any commercial development;
No to developments between the railway line and the A34 bypass.
In addition they should be spelling out to CEC that changing the designation of parts of the Greenbelt to Safeguarded Land (White) is not acceptable. Thus, they should be opposed to proposed changes to land at Prestbury Road, land behind Upcast Lane, Cumber Lane and, I assume, Lindow Fold Drive. This manoeuvre on the part of Government and local councils is simply planning for a continuation of an ever increasing population, has no regard for sustainability or thought for the quality of life for our unborn generations.
The role of a local government councillor: Councils are made up of members – called Councillors - who together represent the people in their jurisdiction. Councillors are directly elected to represent the people ...
In order to represent the people, it is necessary to listen to what they are saying, rather than what Mark Prisk is saying.
Gary, your father recently stood for election to WTC; he did not listen to what the people were saying; as a result WTC now has a single independent voice, if the rest of you do not listen, I predict a huge change at the next local elections..
http://bit.ly/12zh16q
http://bit.ly/15QSeN2
http://bit.ly/18UsThC
I no longer have confidence in CEC.
I am currently waiting for a ruling from the Information Commissioners Officer on a decision by CEC to refuse to respond to Freedom of Information requests and have also made an official complaint with regards to the decision to grant panning permission to Jones Homes to build new houses in the greenbelt http://bit.ly/18msIiW
But when it comes to arguments on interpretation of what should be facts that can affect future changes (e.g.What brownfield sites truly exist?) I ask:-
Have these been co-ordinated onto a map that all may see and thus be a less nebulous subject of discussion?
I am not likely to be greatly affected whatevever happens to Wilmslow, but it would be sad if such a pleasant place were unneccessarily damaged.
I am currently researching this and pan to do exactly as you suggest.