Land off Broad Lane in Stapeley and Hack Green, near Nantwich, were both considered for possible permanent gypsy sites by Cheshire East Council, it has emerged.

They were on a list of 11 sites seriously considered before the council settled on land off Parkers Road/Kent Lane, in Crewe.

An area of farmland off Broad Lane was considered because of good access and close to town facilities, but was ruled out because of a nearby newt colony.

Land at Hack Green, near Nantwich was looked at but discounted because of poor access to local services or public transport.

The permanent site will house 12 pitches and an amenity block with washrooms, kitchen, dayroom and laundry.

A Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation and Related Services Assessment identified a need to provide 27 to 42 pitches between 2006 and 2011 and a further 19 to 22 pitches between 2011 and 2016.

Since 2006 only 10 new permanent pitches have been created in Cheshire East.

All gypsies and travellers on council-owned or private sites must pay council tax, rent, gas and electricity.

A planning application for the new site in Crewe could go before the council in the next few weeks.

Cllr Rachel Bailey, Cabinet member with responsibility for safer and stronger communities, said: “A proactive approach to managing the housing needs of Gypsies and Travellers is the only way to tackle the issue.

“Permanent and transit sites are proven to reduce the number of unauthorised developments and encampments, two issues which concern residents and are costly to the council and local businesses.”

(pic by anemoneprojectors)


  1. Phoenix says:

    I am outraged at the proposal, as a local resident my family and friends don’t want this site on our doorstep. We live in a respectable community and such a site will only distrupt our lives, devalue our homes and cause further problems in the local pubs. Such a site will also put people off coming to the area and will have a significant effect on the businesses. I guess the schools will also be expected to give the travelling children places – our local school can’t cope with the children already in the community without then expecting children of the community to give up places for the travellers.

  2. Brangane says:

    Where does Councillor Rachel Bailey (and her CEC chums) live? Nowhere near the proposed sites for sure.

  3. Julie Webb says:

    If such sites are going to be made available, then I feel the people (gypsy and travellers) who need and will benefit from them must pay the costs towards having them built in the first place. They should then be charged an ongoing yearly fee to utilise them and maintain them. It would be useful for everybody who wishes to use such a site is registered and issued with a plastic card, which is used as an identification pass to the sites. I oppose other people having to pay for such amenities, which basically will come out of the individual council budgets. If people choose to live in an alternative manner to the majority, then they shouldn’t expect others to pay for it. I do understand that by providing such sites does (or should) manage gypsy and travellers better, but it shouldn’t be to the detriment to others; residents, business and local area.

  4. Lawts says:

    I think it is absolutely disgusting that the Council would want put a Travellers site next to such a nice residential community. The application has not even gone ahead yet and already it is affecting our lives.

    Hopefully the strong response from the local residents will be enough to stop this from going ahead.

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.