Willaston housing plan overhead

Residents in Willaston are being urged to join the fight against new plans to build another 300 homes in the village.

Stretton Willaston Ltd has submitted the latest one – a bid to build 175 houses on land between Park Road and the railway line.

It comes just days after we revealed Wainhomes unveiled a plan to build 120 homes on land on the side of the railway line, near to Cheerbrook Road.

Around 500 leaflets for the Stretton plan (pictured) were handed out last year as part of a public consultation by agents SatPlan.

And they claim part of their proposals could include a new train station for Willaston with additional car parking.

But campaigners are again angry that developers are again targeting the Crewe-Nantwich ‘Green Gap’ for potential housing.

Willaston and Rope Ward Councillor Brian Silvester said: “Willaston residents are reeling after being hit with two big planning applications for a total of 300 houses in the village in just 10 days.

“Willaston is under constant bombardment from the developers.

“In the last year alone, more than 200 houses have been passed in the Green Gaps that surround Willaston.

“In the Willaston part of my Ward there are about a 1,000 houses and if this application and the recent one in Cheerbrook Road for 125 houses, gets passed, it will mean that the number of houses will have gone up by an unbelievable 50%.

“Willaston will be just overwhelmed if these developments go ahead. The proposed housing is just not sustainable.

“Recently the Secretary of State refused an appeal for 880 houses, partly in my ward, in Rope and Shavington because it was premature due to the fact that the Local Plan has not yet been adopted and in the meantime the Green Gaps should be preserved.

“Cheshire East Council now need to move far more quickly then they have in the past to get the Local Plan adopted and to ensure that they have a five year housing supply that is not overturned on appeal.”

Of the Park Road plan, resident Jan Oakes added: “Traffic trying to get to the Peacock roundabout in rush hour is a joke as it is

“It will be horrendous if another 150-200 cars are trying to get back to the village!”

A report by agents SatPlan says: “The submitted scheme has taken account of residents’ comments, with the greatest change relating to a reduction in site area and therefore the overall quantum of housing proposed.

“There is a clear requirement for additional housing to be provided in Cheshire East. The
Council cannot demonstrate a deliverable 5 year housing land supply.

“Current housing policies are out of date, this leads to a clear presumption in favour of sustainable development.”

Residents have until February 26 to send in their comments on the proposals.

4 Comments

  1. It is blatantly obvious that Cheshire East Council is utterly powerless to stop the majority of these developments as it has neither an adopted Local Plan nor a 5 year supply of housing land.

    However, it is actually the Coalition Government that is, in large part, responsible for the ‘developers bonanza’ or ‘developers paradise’ in Cheshire East that landowners and developers are currently luxuriating in, no doubt raising a glass (or 5) of Moet & Chandon every time another favourable appeal decision from the Planning Inspectorate drops through the letterbox.

    To quote directly from the Ministerial foreword on page i of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the NPPF replaced:

    ‘…over a thousand pages of national policy with around fifty, written simply and clearly, we are allowing people and communities back into planning.’

    Do the residents of Willaston, Shavington, Wistaston and Wybunbury think that replacing more than 1,000 pages of national policy with ‘around’ 50 was a good idea?

    Do they agree that this has allowed ‘people and communities back into planning’? I doubt it. This hasn’t let people back into planning at all.

    The NPPF contains words such as ‘sustainable’ and ‘severe’ but in my considered opinion it fails to provide sufficiently clear and unambiguous definitions for these words. The result of this is that when a planning application in Cheshire East is refused, 9 times out of 10 the developer appeals against the refusal then promptly engages the best barristers (Queen’s Counsel) and expert witnesses who are pitched into battle against far weaker and less well-resourced opponents- Cheshire East Council and its representatives.

    The arguments constructed by the developer’s QCs tend to revolve around paragraph 49 of the NPPF which states that:

    ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.’

    In respect of Shavington, Willaston, Wistaston and Wybunbury, the most recent policies for the supply of housing land were contained in the last Local Plan, which expired in 2011.

    Therefore, in the context of paragraph 49, such policies are now out of date because Cheshire East Council CAN NOT demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

    Almost every single appeal statement by (or on behalf of) developers appealing against refusal of planning permission will trot out the now- familiar refrain (generally along the lines of):

    ‘Because Cheshire East Council cannot demonstrate a 5-years supply of deliverable housing sites, paragraph 49 of the Framework [the NPPF] is engaged, therefore THE PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT applies.’

    That word ‘Sustainable’ again, you see? Is the meaning of the word ‘sustainable’ defined clearly enough in the NPPF? To answer that question, why not spend an hour or so of your evening reading the NPPF? After all, it is ONLY 50 PAGES long!!!

    Put simply, in my opinion, the definitions of key words such as ‘sustainable’ and ‘severe’ are not defined with the level of precision required for the proper interpretation and application of planning policies in the NPPF.

    Arguably, the result of this is that developers simply employ- and pay a lot of money to- the best QCs in the land to argue what these words actually mean at planning appeals or in the High Court. But, of course, they are paid by developers, so their arguments consist of getting the best outcome for their clients- gaining planning permission on appeal.

    This is going on in every county up and down the country. The only way to stop it is to write to the powers that be with a well-argued case. Because if you don’t, in 10 years time all the villages (and the town of Nantwich) will be absorbed into Crewe and the entire area will be a concrete jungle of housing developments linking ‘Greater Crewe’ with Stoke on Trent.

    HS2 is going to come to either Crewe or Stoke. If it comes to Crewe, then you can kiss goodbye to ‘South Cheshire’ as we know it because the whole area will be bulldozed and covered in houses occupied by commuters who will catch the new ‘high speed’ train to London.

    Now, I am no Nostradamus- a visionary who, it is said, predicted many of the world’s most significant events.

    But I can tell you that South Cheshire is facing Armageddon: the final battle, with the good residents of South Cheshire against the powers of darkness….

    … the Apocalypse awaits if the masses don’t rise up against the current war being waged on South Cheshire… so stand up and be counted… or perish from a slow, painful and lingering death…

  2. mickey mouse says:

    Fat cat local council my local primary could run Cheshire better

  3. a hiddleston says:

    Its a far Better place to build than the Moorefields development
    Direct access to the main roads and away from the heart of the village.

  4. I am totally against these developments in our greenbelt,
    there will be NO countryside left for the next generation, if these people get there way.
    Eventually it will be just one huge town/city from stoke to crewe and beyond

Leave a Reply

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

By using this form you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website, to learn more please read our privacy policy.

*

Captcha * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.