Local Plan - new inquiry - Muller Property plan for green land (centre), brine leas bottom right, stapeley gardens housing, left - pic by Jonathan White

Muller Property has been GRANTED permission to build the first phase of a potential 1,100-home “Nantwich South” development on land off Peter de Stapleigh Way, it was announced today.

In a 133-page decision notice, the Secretary of State said he agreed with a planning inspector’s report following a second public inquiry held over four days back in February 2018.

The inquiry was held after Muller appealed an original decision by Cheshire East Council to refuse planning permission for the first phase of the development, which amounts to 189 homes and an access road.

In his decision notice, the Secretary of State dismissed concerns of highways safety, saying they “must be afforded no more than very limited weight”.

And he said the potential “harm to character and appearance, and visual amenity” of the site should also be afforded “limited weight in the planning balance”.

The report adds: “The Secretary of State further agrees that the area of land is modest and predominantly at lower grade, and that its loss cannot be judged significant.

“He agrees it merits only modest weight against in the planning balance.

“The Secretary of State notes that no other substantive harms have been identified and agrees with the Inspector that the other effects of the development can be effectively mitigated through the provisions of the section 106 obligations, thus rendering them neutral in the planning balance.”

However the report states that the Government agrees Cheshire East Council can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and that the “presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case”.

Access road off Peter de Stapleigh Way junction - Muller Property access road plan
Access road off Peter de Stapleigh Way

But he concluded that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the drawbacks.

“Weighing in favour of the proposal, the provision of market housing in a sustainable location is afforded significant weight.

“The provision of affordable housing to help meet a need in Cheshire East is also given significant weight.

“The economic benefits in terms of direct and indirect employment during its construction and expenditure into the local economy of the proposal are given medium weight.

“The social benefits, including extensive areas of public open space, the scope for the development of a further primary school and improvements to sustainable transport connectivity are given medium weight.”

Muller Property has now been granted planning permission subject to the conditions for:
– Proposed residential development for up to a maximum of 189 dwellings
– local centre with a maximum floor area of 1,800 sq m, and employment development with a maximum floor area of 3,700 sq m
– a primary school site
– public open space including new village green, children’s play area and allotments, green infrastructure including
ecological area
– access road via Peter de Stapleigh Way and new pedestrian access and associated works
– proposed new highway access road, including footways and cycleways and associated works

Cheshire East Council may consider an appeal in the High Court which they would have to apply to do within six weeks, as a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

We have contacted Cheshire East Council, campaign group Protect Stapeley, and Stapeley Parish Council for their reaction.

We have also contacted Muller Property for their reaction.

The full Secretary of State decision notice can be viewed here.


  1. When the representatives of the (now defunct) Hospital Street Residents Association presented a petition to the late Gwyneth Dunwoody calling for government consideration of a southern bypass, they were met with the comment that there had not been enough deaths on the roads in the town to justify a bypass. If the roads become clogged with vehicles it will be unlikely that pedestrians will be killed by traffic. Instead, the poor air quality will get them! The old buildings and their woodwork will suffer contemporaneously.

  2. James you are wrong and don’t know the facts. I live on Kingsbourne by the football ground and I am a Dabber. I’m from Nantwich. I work in town and I contribute to keeping the town alive by spending here and eating and drinking (when we can) in local cafes etc! So do the other residents on the new developments that I know. It shows how much Nantwich is a lovely place to live bar residents like you who are stuck in the dark ages. Where you live James was a new home at some point. These housing developments do bring lots of money into the town and keep the town going and growing. There are too many people who show they don’t understand that by making comments like yours James!

  3. Agreed, a Nantwich ‘south’ ring road between the Cheerbrook roundabout and the A530, which has been previously proposed, is now desperately needed.

    • It now makes sense why the ring road route was so clearly nonsensical. It left the opportunity for this additional ring of development on the other side of PDS Way.

      The answer to congestion is not to build yet another road, it is to stop building houses.

  4. there just isn’t the infrastructure or aminities for so many more houses, the town and environs can’t handle that huge amount of people and traffic. I despair at the thought of what is happening to our town.

  5. Ruining a lovely market town, but it doesn’t effect the high and might who make the decisions, who don’t live here.

  6. Another mass overpriced development ruining Nantwich which does not cater for Nantwich people. Like the other two recent large developments (Queens Drive and rear of the football ground) all they bring is commuters from out of the area and trouble. Nantwich people need affordable housing.

    • The two large recent developments you refer to (which you couldn’t be bothered to find out the names of) are Malbank Waters and Kingsbourne. My daughter, who is Nantwich born and bred and has always worked hard, has a house on Kingsbourne. She is not, as you describe, a commuter from out of the area and she and her partner definitely do not cause any trouble. She is a Dabber and still works in Nantwich.

    • As a clearly unwelcome outsider, I have bought on the mass produced estate at the rear of the football ground, or Kingsbourne at it’s known.

      Since arriving in Nantwich, I have completed Fire Risk Assessments and helped a large percentage of companies set back up to operate under current CoVid conditions, all for free, and will continue to do so should I be contacted as I want to benefit the community. But I apologise for the ‘trouble’ I’m causing.

      And just a heads up, Housing developers are legally obliged to include affordable housing from design stage under S106, so affordable housing is available…and as the early bird catches the worm on such properties, you can’t be late to a buffet and complain the food is gone.

      • Top Man… looking forward to you solving the substantive issues around overdevelopment including traffic, parking, lack of provision of school places, doctors, dentists, air polution, light polution…

        Its a good job you’re here. Ta

    • I’ve lived in Nantwich for nearly 2 decades. Always bought houses I’ve lived in within the area and even rented within the area. I shop locally. My children have been educated locally. I’ve worked and still work locally. I’m pleased to be buying an ‘overpriced’ detached home on Kingsbourne in my own, namely because the builders offered much better incentives and deals than any other non new build home locally could offer because of rapacious vendors!

  7. The area is over subscribed with Traffic congestion as a significant problem. Given the overriding green compass, another circa 500 vehicles clogging up the route to A500 or Nantwich , is unacceptable. The area may look ideal, but the reality is , the road links are already oversubscribed , so it most definitely is not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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.