Ninety new homes could be on the way on land off London Road in Nantwich, writes Belinda Ryan.
David Wilson Homes wants to build the dwellings on a 6.3 hectare greenfield site which falls in the parish of Stapeley and Batherton.
Part of the southern boundary of the site is defined by Wybunbury Lane.
To the west, the site boundary is defined by London Road.
The developer has requested Cheshire East Council provides a formal screening opinion to confirm whether there is a requirement for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in respect of the proposed scheme.
Environmental impact assessments consider the environmental effects of major development proposals and help councils decide whether to grant planning permission.
Developers can check if they need an EIA by requesting a screening opinion from the council before they submit a planning application.
The letter submitted by Savills, on behalf of the applicant, outlines the details of the proposed development, which will be put forward as an outline planning application for residential development comprising up to 90 dwellings, with all matters reserved apart from access.
It states: “The proposed development will deliver a range of market and affordable housing types with amenity space provided in the form of dedicated, private and shared amenity space.
“A policy compliant proportion of affordable homes will be provided.”
It adds: “As part of the proposal, a significant amount of landscape planting will be included to act as a visual screen to the fields beyond the site, to provide amenity space for the local community, and enhance biodiversity.”
The applicant states the nature and scale of the proposed development is not likely to give rise to significant environmental effects that would trigger the need for an EIA.
The letter states: “The development proposal will be supported by a comprehensive ecological appraisal that will set out the environmental enhancements to be delivered as part of the scheme.
“In addition, the proposal will deliver a minimum 10 per cent net gain in biodiversity, in line with the national statutory requirement.
“This will be achieved through green infrastructure, sustainable drainage and landscape planting on and/or off site.”
The document details reasons why the applicant considers an EIA is not necessary and concludes: “The proposal is unlikely to result in significant effects on the environment virtue of factors such as its nature, scale and location.
“Consequently, we are of the opinion that an environmental impact assessment is not required, and we look forward to the council’s consideration of this view.”
Yet another proposed development for Nantwich.
The statement that it will not affect the ecological environment does not stack up.
Of course it will.
Trees will be cut down, there will be less green areas to act as a separation from one housing scheme to another.
There will be at least two cars per household emitying more petrol fumes and raising carbon emissions.
There is going to be affordable housing???? A small token amount of housing association flats or private apartments.
Houses meanwhile are still being built by the same housing company on Stapeley. The Maylands.
The developers recent advert states starting at £300,000 to £575,000.
Other than any housing association houses, does this mean that a starter home is £300,000.
Hardly a first time buyers house.
No other doctors is being built in Nantwich and there is no funding from the government for any new school in this immediate area of Stapeley or Shavington.
The only advice is to looby your parish councils and a local MP., also attend any MP surgery (meeting).
The railway crossings near this proposed development will not take any further traffic.
It is constantly being repaired.
Further development of around another 1000 houses are yet to be built.
Enough is enough for this small town
to cope with.
HS
Thatcher’s right to buy scheme has decimated the affordable rental market. Since it’s inception estimated 2 million social housing homes have been sold to private buyers and at least 40% of those are now in the hands of private renters. There is no incentive for councils to build affordable rental properties if they are then sold at vast discount, and the income is sent directly to central government and not used locally to replenish housing stock/pay for services. The tory government, and their Brexit, of the last fourteen years has left this country in a mess, openly mocked by our continental neighbours, and anybody who thinks bringing them back, or worse still, the Putin muppet Farage, needs to pull their head out of the sand and smell the coffee.
Unfortunately, Angela Rayner is winning on her quest for millions of homes to be built, regardless of consequences, green or brown land and also los of open spaces. Concrete jungles…… so long as Liebour’s targets are met. Totally agree, there isn’t enough thought on infrastructure and to reiterate, doctors, dentists, bus services, supermarkets, not to mention the overload of traffic and road upkeep.
I would say the majority of people who rent a property are not unwilling to buy one. They just cannot afford to buy one. I reiterate developers do not build houses for people who rent. The bills are phenomenal every month. There has never been any money for savings never mind a deposit.
Builders have obligations thrust on them; building regs, thermal efficiency, tree and wildlife protection, social housing etc.
What they don’t have though, is infrastructure development. When we moved to Nantwich in 1985, there were virtually no new builds, but now the town is absolutely saturated with them. The houses are fine…great even…but our infrastructure is now strained to the limit.
Surely the council can’t carry on allowing seemingly endless housing without insisting on the schools, shops, surgeries, parking, out-of-town pubs and restaurants etc. that support town life?
Stapeley, Kingsley Field etc. are adding hundreds of homes and thousands of people, but they are in danger of producing a sprawl, not a well thought-out expansion of our town.
Maybe we’re even past that stage?
Hooray, yet more houses and traffic, but no additional services! Less doctors/dentist appointments, school places, parking spaces in town etc…… and no doubt the SoS will overrule any planning refusals.
Lets be clear about ‘A policy compliant proportion of affordable homes will be provided’
Affordable homes/housing seems to be a term that allows cash rich companies to buy up substantial numbers of new housing at discount prices from builders so that they can be rented out to those unable or unwilling to raise a mortgage to buy their own home.
Renting is now so costly that the occupants will probably never be able to own their home and additional service charges will be permitted to allow councils to relieve themselves of what were their responsibilities in days gone by.
Councils tick a box, cut back on services and raise local taxes
Builders win, developers win, councils win – householders lose!
Whatever happened to the ‘right to buy’?
Extremely sad and disappointing. As someone who rents in their 50s these properties will never be available to people like us. My husband works full time and has done all his life but to no avail. We have both lived locally in the area for years and to see the green fields and land churned up makes me want to weep.
Please stop developers/ parasitic builders?? building on green fields they are being desecrated which is to their benefit almost solely, so much has gone in my 85 years I hate what has happened to this country.