Councillors have voted to fight plans for 75 homes in Nantwich at appeal on highways grounds after hearing there’s “a ticking time bomb” caused by unplanned, piecemeal developments, writes Belinda Ryan.
Nightingale Land wants to build the homes on fields off Broad Lane in Stapeley and to bulldoze a bungalow for access.
Cheshire East Council planners had recommended the scheme for approval, but the strategic planning board deferred the application twice in March when councillors asked for a traffic assessment to identify any cumulative impact.
This was because they were aware two more separate applications for about 700 more homes are in the pipeline.
Nightingale Land lodged an appeal for non-determination and yesterday (June 9th) the council’s planners urged councillors to vote they were “minded to approve” the application and not to defend the appeal.
But Stapeley Cllr John Priest, speaking as a visiting member, was adamant the council should stand its ground and defend the appeal.
Cllr Priest said: “It would appear that pressure is being applied through a very deliberate strategy designed to warn this board of a costs award for unreasonable behaviour.
“It can never be unreasonable for this board to require that a developer provides accurate, real-world data before adding 75 new homes onto a local highways network that Nantwich and Stapeley residents know is already operating at its absolute limit.”
Stapeley resident Pat Cullen told the meeting: “The Nightingale Land traffic statement only assessed the capacity of one road junction, and that was access to the site.”
He said the Muller transport assessment – for a 411-home development which has yet to be determined – assessed other junctions.
Mr Cullen referred to three within half a mile of the Broad Lane site.
He said of those three junctions, Muller’s data showed one is currently operating at 99% capacity. Anything above 90% is considered as over-capacity.
The others are projected to hit 90.7% and 92.3% within four years.
“There’s a ticking time bomb here in Nantwich and it’s brought about by unplanned, piecemeal developments,” said Mr Cullen.
“You can’t be pressured into approving a scheme where the baseline data is proven to be obsolete, and the network is already at capacity.”
The council’s planning officers said the decision had to be made on the 75-home application, not any future schemes.
Cllr Janet Clowes (Wybunbury) said: “I’ve got all sorts of issues around highways safety on that little stretch of road, but our highways experts tell us that the modelling, the engineering, around this entrance is safe.”
Crewe councillor Ben Wye said he teaches children how to cycle on main roads across Crewe and Nantwich and “Broad Lane is the only road where we do not allow them to ride on the road because of our own risk assessments, everywhere else we can”.
Cllr Anthony Harrison said he was minded to refuse the application and referred to policies in the national planning policy framework relating to the severe impact on the road network, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.
Acting chair Garnet Marshall said he was minded to approve it, saying the 75 homes proposed “aren’t going to make much of a difference to the way things are at the moment”.
It was pointed out Cllr Harrison had already moved refusal and this was then seconded by Cllr Rob Moreton.
Six councillors voted in favour of being “minded to refuse” the application on the grounds of severe highways impact, two voted against and one abstained.
The council’s officers will now defend the appeal by sending written representations to the planning inspector, who will make the final decision.
Part 2.
I do also support the above very valid sstements made by Mr Cullen. These roads are full to capacity. A large no of houses have also developed who now use thrsr roads. The added proposed development by Muller or Seddon homes will add to this. The point that I was very valudly making in my previous statement is that the new NPPF 2025 as amended in February 2026 supports schemes that fit in with the overall Governmental policies. With Traffic Infrastructure monies being funded by the Governmrnt for the appropriate infrastructure. Such as dual carriageways, bypasses and a fully developed traffic planning strategy to support suitable sustainable developments, plus funding for community infrastructure. Not for shoe horn developments in totally inappropriate sites. There are brownfield sites. Plus sites already nearer to the appropriate infrastructure. There are many sites that are still being built in Crewe. They are nearer to the appropriate highways funded by the government. Sites also need to meet the criteria of being near to a major train station such as Crewe. One of the main criteria that appropriate trains at appropriate times should be available to keep traffic of the roads. This site does nit have the right connectivity required. The trains that currently runn from Nantwich do not have the right or number if trains to get workers to Crewe feeder transport. Either to the buses at this tome have the right time slot to get peope to Nantwich Statiom or Crewe station 2 buses are required. So, people use their cars. I have spoken to residents of Peter despleigh way. At the junction of the Cronkinsom Pub in order to get out of that estate to turn left onto feed roads it is taking people 45 mins to get out of the estate. Also at the previous junction to turn.left towards the a500 past Cheerbrools it takes longer as they are then backing up behind the ones exiting near the Cronkonson pub. Then the hold ups once out if the junction I’ve waited 45 minutes to get through. What’s also happening them is the traffic migration onto feeder roads with even narrower roads. Dig Lane, Second Dig Lane, Annions lane and Wynbury lane. People are using them as rat runs. 75 more houses = 150 more cars . People do t just use them for school runs. People are using the road at all times of the day. Traffic assessments should be taken over a full day. Thee are numerous large companies in the surrounding areas who have employees on various shift patterns. Workers from these large scale organisations also come from Nantwich. More thought now needs to take into account these figures. Corporate businesses are under the same scrutiny to do so. Any business.is.
I am against this scheme on its own merit. The data traffic I havd gathered is on the unsustainable of this scheme only. I will lodge my objections on these merits alone. Any major corporate company that havd placed an out if date traffic assessment, should be asked to supply a new up-to-date assessment. The previous one was not transparent with inaccurate figures as it was taken in a school holiday. It was also an out of date assessment taken years ago. So it didn’t take into account the new houses that have been built in the area since. Within their proposed scheme there is insufficient data of the impact to mothers and children using Batherton lane as a footpath. It is dangerous there. They cannot widen that road as the adjacent field is owned by another person. The hedge along there is of a historic nature. The crux of the matter is that this scheme does not meet the criteria of a sustainable scheme, both in terms of traffic infrastructure and community infrastructure. It doesn’t meet the criteria of the National Governmen let alone local Cheshire East policies. It’s outside of the Stapeley Parsh boundary. All other more suitable sites should be considered under Local Governmental and National NPPF framework. There is a plethora of both private housing stock, housing association stock in Nantwich sitting VOID. No corporate company is above a Local Council or the National Government. Any misrepresentation either by an administrative error or any other doctrine is prosecutable under the Misrepresentation act. Strategic lead strategies Local Plan and National Governmental planning should be followed. Not Developer led.
I’m not against new homes — I’m against building them when every essential service we rely on is already at breaking point.
We don’t have enough GPs, dentists, school places, or community services as it is, and adult social care is already stretched so thin it can barely cope with current demand.
Until there’s a real, funded plan to expand infrastructure and support services alongside housing, all we’re doing is adding more pressure to systems that are already struggling.
More housing will just create more problem right now.
Despite officers determining that the application would meet all the relevant statutory and policy tests the amateurs reject it. We CT payers will now have to meet the councils costs and possibly the developer’s costs of an appeal, yet again more money wasted by Cheshire East Councillors, but WT hell it’s not theirs!!!!