For your information Henbury Parish Council has written the following letter to Cheshire East Council Planning concerning the expected Planning Application from Jones Homes & Redrow to build 200 homes south of Chelford Road :
September 6th 2017
To the Head of Planning, CE Council Head of Planning, CE Council
Dear Mr Fisher
Henbury Parish Council has seen a proposal by Redrow and Jones to build 200 houses on CS40, south of Chelford Road.
At a meeting with CHALC on July 25th the Head of Planning stated that he welcomes comments in advance of any pre-planning discussions. This letter gives our first reactions to the proposal.
Our comments are closely related to our comments of 31st July on the Local Plan provisions for CS32, CS40 and CS41, to which we received no substantial reply.
We first re-state our objections to the allocation of Green Belt land between Henbury and Macclesfield.
The need to preserve strips of Green Belt or at least open countryside between Villages around conurbations to prevent villages becoming incorporated into those conurbations. Losing this strip of countryside between Broken Cross and Henbury is an example of exactly this principle. Henbury, a unique community, is becoming a suburb of Macclesfield.
Brownfield versus Green Belt. Many of the occupants on the proposed developments will work in Manchester and Liverpool greatly worsening the traffic commuting towards the cities, with adverse consequences on the environment, air pollution and on the road infrastructure between Macclesfield and these cities. Both Manchester and Liverpool have previously made it entirely clear that they prefer the development of Brownfield sites within their own conurbations to the highly undesirable commuting consequences of yet more Greenfield development.
CS 40 is adjacent to Henbury Parish, and the comments on Environment and Infrastructure which we made on the CS41 proposals in our letter of 31st July apply with equal force to the proposals for CS40. The following comments are based on the relevant parts of that letter.
Environment. The proposal is for housing on part of the Green Belt, and should be developed with particular sensitivity to the environment. In particular it should take into account the proximity of the Cock Wood SBI, which appears to coincide with the boundary of the proposal. An ecological survey of the ponds in this part of the SBI will be required. We note also that the north-west corner of CS40 is not included; we regard it as essential that any development of this Green Belt area should be planned as a whole rather than piecemeal.
Traffic. The A537 Chelford Road is already overloaded, and we have already expressed our concern at the extra traffic the development would bring, and the likelihood that there will be increased pressure on the minor roads through Henbury as a consequence. We would welcome a full investigation of the impact of the proposed development.
Road Junction. Access to the new development will be on to A537. No detail is available, and we are concerned that any scheme will cause obstruction on this very busy road. Furthermore, any development of CS41 would also require access to the A537, and there remains part of CS41 (on the east) which if developed would require yet another road junction. These three requirements should be considered together, before piecemeal schemes are proposed.
Schools.
We understand that the local schools are already overloaded and are restricting their intake of children from Henbury. The proposal assumes that places will be available for the new residents, many of whom will be young families. Has this been properly analysed?
Local facilities. Access to shops and other facilities will inevitably be by car, adding to the serious traffic burden. There is no local GP surgery, and those at Chelford and Waters Green are already overloaded
Air quality. Cheshire East have identified the Broken Cross roundabout/A537 area as falling below national air quality limits, and have stated as follows (CEC Air Quality webpage) that a report and an action plan are required before planning permission can be granted:
If a development is in close proximity to, or within an existing Air Quality Management Area, the report MUST show there is no adverse impact on Air Quality within the AQMA. If an adverse impact is predicted suitable mitigation should be suggested which is aimed at reducing this impact as far as is reasonably practicable.
The proposed housing development is close to Broken Cross, and can only lead to a further degradation as a result of increased traffic, and hence congestion, in the area. A statement on how the development is expected to impact on the air quality levels will be an essential element in the planning process.
We believe that the planning process for this and the adjacent sites would be best advanced by discussions of these points in advance of a formal application by the developer, and we would be gratified to hear that you are willing for such discussions to be arranged.
Yours sincerely
David Nuttall
Chairman – Henbury Parish Council