Queens Drive housing leaflet from Gladman Developments

Cheshire East Council has approved a controversial 240-homes plan for a greenfield site in Nantwich.

Gladman Developments proposal for land off Queen’s Drive was passed by the Strategic Planning Board yesterday (February 20), despite objections.

Many residents fear it will lead to increased traffic problems around the area and along Welsh Row, as well as the loss of green space.

But it was passed along with a second plan known as the “Shavington Triangle”, which will see 400 homes built on land south of Newcastle Road near Wybunbury.

Local campaigner Pat Cullen, of Protect Stapeley, said the Shavington plan approval was not a surprise as it was included in the Local Plan. However, the Gladman one wasn’t.

“We were surprised to see Cheshire planning officers recommend approval and the SPB give their approval,” said Pat.

“Gladman had the first application for this site refused and they went to appeal which has not yet been determined.

“In the meantime, they submitted a second application for the same site with slightly fewer houses and an ‘improved’ highways plan.

“Cheshire planning officers found no planning grounds on which to refuse, the SPB was conscious Gladman may win their appeal for the first application so they approved this application.

“It is the wrong decision made for the wrong reasons.”

The Gladman plan includes provision for a new convenience store, and public open space, as well as work on improving surrounding highways.

The plan was deferred at an earlier planning board in the month to allow for a site visit.

Objections were also lodged by Nantwich Town Council, Acton Edleston and Henhull parish council and Network Rail.

Mr Cullen, who is leading the fight against a Muller Property application to develop a large 1,100-home “Nantwich South” development in Stapeley, believes the latest approvals could have an impact on that decision.

“You can be certain when the Muller applications are considered, Protect Stapeley will remind the Strategic Planning Board they have approved up to 650 houses within a three-mile radius of Nantwich town centre,” he added.

“And that the Reaseheath/Kingsley Fields proposals for 1,000 houses are in the pipeline and that unplanned, unsustainable developments such as the Muller applications must be refused.”

12 Comments

  1. Jon says:

    I have attended the Public Enquiry today at Macclesfield Town Hall re the previous undecided 270 home application on the same site. The Council are now not objecting to the 270 plan , have passed the 240 plan, and the enquiry is running for four days from Tuesday 5th March 2013 until the Friday. The Inspector of Planing visited the site this afternoon and heard representations from Gladman Developments. The Council are offering little or no evidence in the case, even though the startegic plan suggests it is undevelopable and un achievable, just documents that relate to consents and mitigating factors that are in draft re the Edmund Wight Way and Taylor Drive being proposed to be a through way and the altering of the staging of lights at the Canal Viaduct and Water Lode. I was disappointed and surprised that only three residents of the Cheshire East County appeared in person to make any representations to the inspector today. Out of those, only two from Nantwich. I didn’t see any of our councillor representatives nor any other person to speak on behalf of the people of Nantwich re this development. Anyone who turns up to the appeal and makes it clear they wish to speak should be heard by the Inspector, but on todays evidence session, Gladman Developments are not that worried about Nantwich objections, which are clearly not being presented in person by residents or your Councillors. The aspect of road traffic changes effect everyone and these have been kept quiet until after the Appeal has started, so most people near Queens Drive and other roads probably don’t yet realise the impact being suggested by the increased traffic flows and a 270 home development in open countryside towards Wrenbury. Don’t moan later when it is all decided, get over to Macclesfield and put your objections or suggestions Wed, Thur or Fri this week.

  2. Worthwords says:

    TEARS OF A TOWN

    Faceless people making gutless decisions,
    None which are made with credible precision,
    They attend their meetings and claim expenses,
    Whilst they’re breaking down the town’s defenses.

    Why do we want more houses here?
    Clogging up our town we hold so dear,
    It’s not for local peoples’ enjoyment,
    It’s unsustainable, there’s not enough employment.

    So, Local Councillors, use your eyes and ears,
    The people of Nantwich are in tears,
    Tears of frustration as outsiders decide,
    The quality and the amenity of where we reside.

  3. Chris Driver says:

    It does seem extraordinary that one application can be approved (albeit with conditions) while another for the same site is going to Appeal. We now have a situation where, if the Appeal is disallowed – unlesss the only grounds are to do with traffic – it must cast doubt on the Planning Committee’s decision to give consent to the second near-identical application, having already refused the first one. And if the Appeal is allowed, the applicant will be in a position to drop all the conditioned requirements for improving access, because they will have a less onerous approval in the bag. Heads they win, tails we lose.

    Whatever the apparent shortcomings of officers’ recommendations in this case, they are bound by national planning policy. There have to be very strong planning reasons to recommend refusal of an application, otherwise a lot of Council Tax payers’ hard-earned would be wasted in unsuccessfully opposing developers’ appeals. It’s the Planning Committee members who have a duty to their electors to represent their views, and, if the Committee members who feature on BBC2’s The Planners are typical of the breed, well …. enough said. If you don’t like what your elected member is up to, you know what to do.

    And – for now – make sure you comment on the Cheshire East Local Plan. You’ve got until Tuesday 26th to make your views known!

  4. Barney says:

    The New Homes Bonus introduced by the Coalition Government is referred to in the Planning Application documents. It is stated that the proposed Queens Drive Development will generate £2,100,000 for Cheshire East Council. Likewise, if approved, the current Planning Application for the proposed erection of 60 dwellings at Land at COG Training Centre, Crewe Road, Nantwich would generate £460,550. Do you think that these bonuses influence Cheshire East Council’s decisions? Furthermore, where and how will the payments be invested in the Borough?

  5. Betty Daivis says:

    This planning approval is just a total disregard to local people’s thoughts. Thank you Chehire East for approving this Fiasco; 240 houses,and all that goes with that, destruction of beautiful local habitat, destruction of beautiful views, extra noise/fuel pollution from extra cars on the road down Queen’s Drive. Let’s see how many,if any, of these properties are purchased by local people to reduce pressure to house people as against providing yet more bricks and mortar for local letting agents to purchase on block to add to their books to wring extortionate rents out of people in this area?

    Let’s just hope that one day some one plans to dump a 1000 home development on the doorstep of said planning committee……..HAPPY DAYS!!!!!!

  6. Like everyone else in our town, I am appalled at this terrible decision.

    There are two issues at play:

    1) Lack of representation, democracy and transparency in the Planning Process.
    2) Failure of the Planning Department to adequately defend our interests.

    That a Strategic Planning Board at CEC containing no-one representing Nantwich can take decisions that have such a devastating effect on our town is completely wrong. That this is being done on our behalf and with our taxes merely goes to rub salt in the wounds. Decisions effecting Local People should be taken by those people, or their elected representatives.

    The failure of Cheshire East Council’s Planning Department to show any opposition to these ridiculous developments is defeatist and cowardly. We are paying them through our taxes to do a job and they are failing to do so. This is disgraceful.

    I made an impassioned speech on the subject of the failings of CEC’s Planning Department/Committees at the meeting of the Town Council on 4/2/13 and demand action. The other Councillors and members of the press in attendance (including Mr. Leydon, editor of this fine publication) will testify that I did not pull any punches in my criticism of the Council or their Planning Department. I requested (and received agreement) that a Senior Official from CEC be invited to attend our next Town Council Meeting to answer questions about the failure of their Planning Department. I await a response.

    I’m very disappointed in the Conservatives at Cheshire East who seem to think so little of our town. They defend their government’s ‘Assumed approval of sustainable developments’ policy, responsible for so many unwanted developments on green fields all over our country. They’ve voted en masse in the Strategic Planning Board to dump these developments on our doorstep, and they are very quick to (attempt to) silence any criticism or attempts to do what what’s right for local people. If you don’t like what they’re doing, you know what to do at the next election.

    I must however praise one Conservative, Cllr. Jon Hopkins, who has been very vocal and active in his opposition to this development. He’s good chap and he’s doing a smashing job for the people that elected him in Nantwich North.

    I’d like to point out that UKIP’s Planning Policy puts power in the hands of local people, through referenda on contentious issues, and doesn’t allow lengthy and costly appeals (which are usually won by developers and their expensive barristers). I’d encourage you to read it.

    UKIP Planning Policy:
    http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1528-housing-and-planning-ukip-policy

    My thoughts on Developments:
    http://stuartthutton.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/development-in-our-towns.html

    Cllr. Stuart Hutton.

    • Brangane says:

      Despite your comments and those of others, my assumption is that the developments will go ahead. CEC are just not interested in what local people think – you only have to get involved in one of their “consultation” charades to know that. They rule by dictat. I think it is a pity that Nantwich TC has so little influence over the local development of Nantwich. If NTC has have no influence over such matters, what is it for?

  7. Ian Hughes says:

    The Councillors are in Sandbach hence why they are giving the go ahead for the spread of urban development in Nantwich.

    Our nice “little” town will soon be more of a sprawl than it has become already. Those born and bred here who have moved away will not recognise it when they return.

    And what the hell is all this Nantwich “South”, the town was never big enough to warrant a title with divisions. Stapeley used to be separate with fields as a divide.

    It wouldn’t suprise me to see houses pop up on the Barony, Brookfield park or even on Mill Island…………….!

  8. Lainey says:

    Gladman!?! The residents aren’t very glad, but then Cheshire East Council know that, they knew before they approved it. The Council aren’t listening to, or considering the Council Tax payers. They should be asking “Is it Good Enough to Approve?” NOT “Is it Bad Enough to Refuse?”
    So whilst there is uproar about this site, REGENTS COLLEGE LAND (under the pseudonym “Land at COG”) is to go to Committee sometime in March for housing development. No outline planning approval has been sought, they went straight for full planning approval. Regents / Elim didn’t even apply using their own name and address. So it makes one wonder, what are they hiding or at the very least, what have they got up their sleeve?

  9. Graham Dean says:

    The Cheshire East Council website lists 15 members sitting on the Strategic Planning Board. Not one of these represents Nantwich (although one has a Nantwich contact address) so what chance have local residents got in having unsuitable planning applications refused? Councillors representing places such as Disley, Macclesfield, Congleton and Chelford etc don’t have to answer to voters in Nantwich. Is it fair that this should be the case? Obviously, Cheshire East think it is!

  10. Brangane says:

    It is interesting to see that Nantwich Town Council clearly has no influence in these matters. Wonder why?

  11. Its about time that the planners started to listen to local people who know more about Nantwich it seems than they do, do we pay our rates to bunch of incompetant members elected to protect our interests??????????? no more can be said but God help Nantwich or any where under the jurisdiction of Cheshire East Planning Department!!!!!!!!!

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.