Ad
Ad
Nantwich South artist impression, Muller

Planners say developer Muller Property’s first phase of a 1,100-home “Nantwich South” village should be refused.

Muller’s initial application is for 189 homes and access road into the site between Peter Destapleigh Way, Broad Lane and London Road.

It is due to come before Cheshire East Council’s Strategic Planning Board next week (April 3)

But advance documents show that planning officers are recommending the proposals be rejected by councillors on grounds of impact on the landscape and loss of trees and agricultural land.

It will come as a relief to campaigners such as the Protect Stapeley who submitted a 1,700-name petition against the plans.

Campaigners have also been supported by MP Edward Timpson and local ward councillors Andrew Martin and Peter Groves.

However, the  report may raise some concerns as it suggests the application is acceptable, with conditions attached, on grounds of highways, public amenities and primary school places.

The report to councillors states: “The proposed residential development is unsustainable because it is located within the Open Countryside.

“The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not result in loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

“The scheme as presented will result in an immediate loss of trees that contribute significantly to the amenity and landscape character of the area and that the proposed indicative mitigation measures for this loss do not satisfactorily establish the benefits required by local and national policy.

“Following the successful negotiation of a suitable Section 106 package, the proposed development would provide adequate public open space, highways improvements, level crossing mitigation, the necessary affordable housing requirements and provision of primary school education.

“The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact upon residential amenity, ecology, drainage/flooding and it therefore complies with the relevant local plan policy requirements for residential environments.”

The Strategic Planning Board sits next Wednesday April 3 at 10.30am at the Municipal Buildings in Crewe.

Ward councillors, parish and town councillors, members of campaign groups and Civic Society, objectors, supporters and the applicants will have a chance to air their views at the start of the meeting.

7 Comments

  1. So some trees were in the way of the application. Then they are cut down by “Persons unknown” followed by Muller saying they had no knowledge of the trees being felled.

    Muller should be run out of the county for their blatant lying. Their activities are getting beyond a joke and it is about time our feckless Council stood up to them. Or at least let them build in the north east of the county (where, no doubt, most of the planning department live).

  2. The felling of 4 trees on land opposite Cronkinson Farm pub was a heinous and wanton act of destruction, a desperate act. Judging by his comment on this story, ‘Fred’ appears well-informed about tree matters in the locality. I wonder what his opinion is now that the trees have been cut down. Care to give us your opinion ‘Fred’?

    • In response to “Dabber”, following the info that the trees had been chopped down I made some enquiries.
      Apparently if a person owns a plot of land they also own the trees upon it, even if there is a T.P.O.on the trees the person responsible for cutting them down could be fined for each tree and a remote possibility of a custodial sentence.
      However this is Nantwich and previous acts of felling trees resulted in a fine of around £1000 (this was on the site of the old tennis courts off The Mount.)
      This is peanuts to an owner/ developer to enable them to get what they want.
      The local council and Cheshire East Council appear to be only interested in the bonus they receive from Central Government (as pointed out some time back by BARNEY!) and have lost the plot completely, they were elected to represent the residents of Nantwich, a point they have on many occasion forgotten

  3. And low and behold the said trees have mysteriously been felled by persons unknown

  4. I think Fred could be right in his comment, it will only mean that other trees could be cut down to accomadate other house builds in the the Town. It maybe that Stapeley is more thought of than Nantwich and the town’s character.

  5. I wouldn’t hold out much hope of this being rejected in the long run, just look at how toothless Cheshire East Council Planning Department were over the Queens Drive Development that they initially refused planning permission for.

  6. does this mean that the planning committee will recommend refusal for the proposed submission by cog for the development of regents college as there are numerous trees planned to be cut down!!!!
    or is this a typical case of refuse one and approve the other???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Powered by sweet Captcha