Grange public consultation

LoveGoostrey hears that there will be a ‘public consultation’ or exhibition of plans in regard to another proposed housing development, of around 60 houses:

Thursday 20th Feb Village Hall re The Grange.​

With the other current applications this would take the total amount of housing proposed in Goostrey far beyond Michael Jones’s view.   Cllr Jones, Cheshire East Leader, promised in last year’s AGM that Goostrey would only have between 30-50 new houses over 30 years of which around 10-15 could be counted since 2010.  We are very concerned that the infrastructure within the village would not cope with the sudden increase in proposed developments if they were all constructed at once.

LoveGoostrey also have concerns with regards to the Grange development and the impact on the Jodrell Bank Observatory; not to mention the significant visual amenity enjoyed by visitors to Goostrey and nearby residents.  The view from Station Road at The Grange has some of the best views of the Lovell Telescope in Goostrey.   We are aware that Jodrell Bank Observatory vigorously objected to the 13 new houses at Twemlow Green despite the provision of electromagnetic screening of this development which is in the direct line of sight of the Observatory and the Grange, with the Twemlow Green site nearly 1 mile further away from the Observatory than the Grange. We as a village have a responsibility to ensure that development does not cause a significant impact on the operation of this world class facility.

We accept that development is required in the village but would request that this is as a number of smaller developments around the village and phased over the full 30 years life period of the Local  Plan.  There is no need for all these houses to be developed now.

 

8 thoughts on “Grange public consultation

  1. It will be interesting to see the results of the feedback from residents who attended last night’s Site Allocations meeting arranged by GPC. A number of the attendees may have selected The Grange as it was only one of two that was stated to be “Developable” and at the end of the Village as opposed to the Mount Pleasant site which was also stated to be “Developable” but in the centre of the Village. That does not make the development of either site the correct way forward.

    I feel we should be looking primarily at the brownfield sites in the Village down by the Station sidings. Has there been any interest in using these sites commercially? If not then there may be justification in investigating their Residential development on a small scale.

    If this is possible then I would want to see some infrastructure developed as part of the deal, for example, a Goostrey Medical Centre.

    Alongside this I see no harm in continuing the GPC’s previous strategy of small infill of, say, one or two houses per site where justified.

    Whilst GPC will have to put their recommendations forward to Cheshire East sometime in 2014 the required number of houses would be delivered in the period up to 2030.

    Another consideration is that if Goostrey is confirmed as a Local Service Centre then we should be able to deduct from the housing requirement any new housing granted planning since 2010 in the three Villages that Goostrey has been linked with. This would bring the requirement down. Would that also mean that some of the required new housing could be in those three Villages?

    Cheshire East cannot have it both ways i.e. they cannot say that Goostrey is an LSC linked to these three villages and then say we cannot have the benefit of new housing agreed in these villages since 2010.

  2. Yes hopefully comments are sensible and not just a nimby response with people just voting for the development furthest away from their house. I haven’t heard about any recent proposals for the railway sidings, but if houses had to go anywhere and didn’t affect Jodrell Bank observatory then this would be the sensible location, although maybe not the most attractive to developers due to the cost of the site clearance and earthworks required and may not be ideal for the new home owners due to the proximity of the proposed AD plant .

    I didn’t think it was particularly sensible in just giving two options at the recent Parish Council meeting as more sites could be considered (although we could suggest other sites from the SHLAA). I think the sensible approach is for all the sites on the SHLAA sites to accept some housing (say 5-10 houses maximum ) with them phased over 30 years. This would spread the benefit around the landowners of the village and minimise the impact on residents as much as is practical. Of course other sites not on the SHLAA could be considered as well, as we may find that some of the SHLAA sites are not actually developable due to site/planning constraints. Remember just because a site is on the SHLAA doesn’t meant that it is suitable for development and will get planning permission!

    There is still a chance that Goostrey may not have any site allocations in the Site Allocation report to be published this year if sufficient housing can be provided elsewhere in Cheshire East . Also if Cheshire East are true to their word and have now achieved a 5 year housing supply, then this will also end the rash of speculative development proposals in Goostrey!

  3. If development of all the sites displayed the other night were progressed, the “five houses per site spread throughout the Village” proposal would mean that Hermitage Lane would have five new houses on both sides!

    I am sure we are all agreed that any development on green field / open countryside is not desirable. Once a green field is developed it is lost forever. That is why I would favour the development of brownfield with the conditions stated in my earlier post.

    Should not the Government be doing more to promote sustainable agriculture which would preserve a lot of these sites?

  4. Absolutely agree! Brownfield first!! Nobody wants to see the loss of our open countryside but unfortunately with the change in the planning rules then this is becoming the norm. Developers don’t like brownfield sites as there is not enough profit in it for them, therefore to increase the housing supply development is now being promoted in the open countryside. The Sidings is actually classified as ‘Open Countryside’ and is quite a wildlife haven ! If I had the choice I too would prefer the Sidings to the Grange site and would accept a small development say 15No. on Station Road upto 2030. Unfortunately over the next few years we are going to see a step change in the development in the village and we all will have to accept some development near to us, particularly after 2030!

  5. I have lived in Goostrey since 1968 and was only able to buy a property because of the new bungalow development off Boothbed Lane. It is time for Goostrey to accept some new housing, we cannot justify the present “not in our Village attitude” to every application. The Parish council knew this situation would arise two years ago and should have gone to the electorate to ascertain their preferences. Instead they have sat on their hands and done nothing!

    The Hermitage Lane site is the best site at the west end but should be a smaller proposal of max 10 houses. In the centre of the village cosideration should be given to “Mill Lane Field ” where Rose Day used to held. The PC should release the youth club site as infill and remove that eyesore. We are privileged to live in this village but the farms that existed 25 years ago are no longer in operation and as a result alot of the “big tractor” traffic is the result of the land being leased to farms outside the Parish.
    Since we came in 1968 5 shops have been converted to houses and one is now empty we cannot now say that lack of such facilities is a reason for no development.

    • I have not heard anyone saying “no development”. We all accept that Goostrey must provide its quota to the Cheshire East housing stock.

      The question is, how is this best achieved given that the Government (and Cheshire East) says that new housing should be near centres of employment and required services to minimise emissions from motor vehicles etc?

      Green fields / open countryside should be preserved. Once a green field is developed it is lost forever. Brownfield sites should be considered first. The GPC are in the process of recommending site allocations which will provide the basis for discussion on the way forward.

  6. Unfortunately this is also the main dilemma Cheshire East is facing. There are just not enough brownfield sites where housing is required. It’s important to remember that originally all our houses were built in Open Countryside including Hermitage Lane!
    The only true Brownfield site in Goostrey area on the SHLAA is the former oil depot where the AD plant is proposed. (The sidings are termed as open countryside.) Sure, if the AD plant doesn’t go ahead then we would all agree that this site would be a site suitable for a large housing development, but at the moment its not available ( I noted this option was also not included in the Parish Council’s survey). Mr Bennet is correct i’m afraid, we are all going to have to accept some development near to our homes to help meet Cheshire East’s target for house building in Goostrey. There is nowhere in the village which should be sacroscant, including the gap in the middle.
    In the last consultation on Cheshire East’s Core Strategy the overwhelming majority of responses from Goostrey agreed to 30-50 houses spread across the village in a number of small develolpments. If these developments were, say, similar in size to the recently approved Sandyacre development then this would help lessen the impact on everyone and as I’ve said before, share the benefits around the landowners in the village. We also have to consider Jodrell Bank Observatory. They had no objections to Sandyacre or the Chicken farm (as long as simple electromagnetic shielding was in place), but they did object strongly to the Twemlow Green site, the problem seems to be that the pulsars they observe are to the South west of the Lovell telescope. I note they haven’t yet commented on the Hermitage Lane proposal.

    I think the best way forward is for the village to give an Architect the brief to come up with, say, three masterplans for Goostrey based on a brief to provide 30-50 houses around the village in small developments ( with each development no larger than 5-10 houses) and present these at the AGM. Then give the village a couple of weeks to consider and vote for their preferred one. Then the village as a whole can decide on the best future for the village and not just speculative developers! I must say on reflection I did not agree with the way the Parish Council did their survey and just present two mains sites for consideration in the hope that this somehow would protect the rest of the village from development.

  7. Can anybody describe to me why the land opposite the Crown (next to the old Youth Centre) is not on anybodies radar as prime location for potential village infill and remove the others? It seems like a reasonable choice IF green fields are going to be used based on its central location near to school, village hall, post office, pub etc., unless I’m missing something fundemental. I’ve never heard it mentioned in this context and I cannot work out why no mention at all.
    This question is not to say I would want to see it developed, just that I don’t know why it is never mentioned. My initial views are also for slow and controlled growth for the village over the next 30 years per previous statements, it feels a little like a wild west developer land grab at the moment. I note that there is minimal reference to Goostrey in the Cheshire East 5 year plan – which is hopefully good news for the short term.

    On a different point, in our upcoming consultations we will need to describe requirements broader than Goostrey and it’s infrastructure, and we need to be aware of what is happening outside of the village that could impact our services at this time of potentially rapid growth. There are developments in Holmes Chapel (e.g. Bloor Homes and Bellway underway) that will likely impact upon Goostrey residents, and vice versa if things proceed. As an example Goostrey feeds into Holmes Chapel Secondary School, this will need to grow in line with new developments in both Holmes Chapel and any feeder villages such as Goostrey and Twemlow. I do not know if it is already getting investment to expand with the new developments taking place in Holmes Chapel.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s