Graham reports back from Friends of Scholes Park meeting
Demand more Learn more
by Lib Dem team on 4 December, 2017
There’s no doubt about the main item on the agenda for next Tuesday’s Cheadle Area Committee. It’s the planning application 60928 from the Seashell Trust for a new school building and facilities, along with up to 325 homes on the Green Belt land to the immediate north of the site. (The Trust owns that land and proposes to sell it to a housing developer to fund the new school building).
The application has proved contentious. The planning file says there have been 666 comments, with 345 against and 169 in favour. We have moved the meeting to Heald Green village hall on Outwood Road to allow more people to attend. We’ve also doubled the time for speaking for and against the application to six minutes each.
Planning officers are recommending that the application is granted. It will go to our area committee and also Bramhall and Cheadle Hulme South Area Committee for recommendation before being decided by the council’s Planning and Highways Committee on 11th January 2018.
Other items on the agenda:
Full agenda here.
The meeting starts at 6pm on Tuesday 12th December 2017 at Heald Green Village Hall, Outwood Road, Heald Green. All welcome.
10 Comments
Would area committee be able to stipulate upgrades to the surface of the right of way that goes from Stanley Rd (B5094) opposite the Stanley Green trading estate, over the railway, under the A34 and up to Three Acres Lane.
AND a new spur (or more) through the proposed development to Wilmslow Rd – and make it a cycle only/ shared cycle/foot route that has priority / tunnels where it crosses roads (like the current route from Stanley Rd to Three Acres lane) and NOT a pavement based route that causes a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists everytime it crosses a driveway / side road.
This is a blank sheet effectively; no need to ‘compromise’.
Hi Alex – yes, but I think we’d need to do that through the revised SEMMM Strategy. The proposal coming to area committee tomorrow is just about speed limits and yellow lines.
Sorry I meant the planning application for Seashell trust… Those can be made contingent on infrastructure changes can’t they – they certainly seem to get carriageway upgrades and mini-roundabouts added for large developments.
that area to the north was always down for housing. As Royal mail has to plan for the future postal rounds in areas. They have maps of areas like that on the left of Wilmslow Road between Bradshaw Hall Estate and Seashell Trust site. showing as housing development. And no doubt many other areas all over.I just can’t remember where i saw them.
Majority responses against, planning officers minded to approve- tail and dog??
Hi Alan – planning officers, by law, have to say whether they think an application is in line with the council’s planning policy (most of which comes from national planning policy). People often raise concerns that affect a decision, but having lots of people opposed to an application is not in itself a valid legal reason to refuse it. For example, if you wanted to build an extension on your house and it followed all the rules but a hundred people objected, you would still get planning permission.
If there are so many responses against, does this mean they will take notice of that and building will not go ahead? Or will they just go ahead and do it anyway?
Hi Janet – planning applications are, by law, not a petition or a referendum. The decision has to be made on whether the application complies with planning policy. Both councillors and officers take notice of the issues raised by people (both for and against) but there’s no legal basis for approving or rejecting a planning application just because it’s popular/unpopular.
This planning application appears to show that the designation Green Belt now means nothing.
Specifically will the lib dem councillors vote for or against this proposal?
Frederick – as planning law requires, we will go into the meeting with an open mind, listen to the arguments and take a view on whether or not the application meets planning policy. If we made our minds up before the meeting, we couldn’t take part.