Dear Editor
Listening in on the widely trailed approval to the Wrights Lane planning development was an insight into the issues caused by budgetary constraint and a builder wanting to move forward despite the issues its likely to be delivering for its customers and the local community.
The development and houses are not unpleasant and relatively speaking are ‘modern’ not as sustainable as they could be but that won’t change until national standards do I expect. So thankyou builders for that and maybe try to push the envelope next time somewhere else.
The access choice was the issue for almost everyone, more traffic and congestion will be the local issue for anyone using Heath Road and for the new residents of the Wrights Lane development in coming years which gridlocks with traffic in 2 directions now, mornings especially. Access to the school, shops and services from the vicinity will be adversely affected. And of course the Wrights Lane cottages with cars passing around 2ft from their front doors. And with access to ‘Heath Fields area’ behind the development and destined for office/industrial development (or even maybe houses under our new government) being ignored.
In some ways their was a bit of irony in what I heard in so far as the borough councillors on the planning committee did visit the site secretly and identified the issue of access from Heath Road and on Wrights Lane; Ex leader Councillor Corcoran spoke against the development generally but the decision appeared pushed over the line by dismissing Councillor Corcoran’s policy issues and the planning officer pointing out a ‘fair’/generous cash gift of @£170k for schools and green spaces and the fact it would cost £25k to object and likely ultimately fail , and could risk a reduction in the 170k too (this was the irony as he pointed out the current council fiscal position of which Councillor Corcoran had overseen developing) . The developer who is cutting down trees on site already suggested alternate access required the removal of trees which was not good and indeed it would be required for a proper width road but I suggest not one as wide as Wrights Lane will be. And why the conscience over that as others would be saved? And as Councillor Corcoran who again tried swimming against the obvious tide pointed out alternate access probably has a financial downside for the builder.
The committee chair noted how she felt her hands tied, as the opportunity to support the councils current fiscal crisis versus ‘possible’ access issues became the conclusion. So like in a game show they banked the 170k sooner rather than spending 25k to get the chance of 170k or a little less plus a better access plan next year. I have to say it was undignified as a decision on sustainable development and is increasingly common now over the years as hints of a cheque book planning approval process emerges as our council now has to maximize funding ASAP as top priority for its own survival overriding what could be normal concerns and reservations of planning applications. I accept the committee saw this as a marginal call given the bias in the reports who wouldn't, officer comments and failure of Highways to point out the wider road issue which overrode the ‘access will be an issue’ vibe in the committee and my hope for common sense up to the point money was mentioned. The planning officer and developer and not disclosing why not alternate access in detail also seemed questionable as the committee effectively very easily got pressured into what seemed listening to be a 'yes to the cash' rather than a 'yes to the application'.
For the builder and for CE planning the consideration of traffic issues stopped once you’d successfully got onto Wrights Lane from the development. This was because I assume as CE highways had no issues or concerns. This conclusion of CE Highways on the proposal I assume is budgetary ,resource and local knowledge limited, Highways didn’t contact any local councillors to my knowledge for an opinion, and didn’t apparently read residents comments. They probably concluded some traffic scheme and a few more double yellow lines will sort out the cars on Heath Road if needed, and painting roads is what the highways business is about. Highways did however miss a trick in getting the builder to pay toward the inevitably required traffic and parking controls on Heath Road/Wrights Lane for the new residents to get waste collected or larger deliveries. My own correspondence with the builder indicated they stopped caring about traffic at the end of Wrights Lane but once they start building and trying to deliver bricks etc. the penny is going to drop with the builder.
The utility of local residents and local businesses comes further down the list for all of them; for both it seems just about the money. I think had CE Highways raised a specific concern then we would have had a different outcome and another chance for the builder to rethink their access plans and maybe CE would get the money plus better access for all the residents.
A late amendment to the plan of a little road spur to the rear of the site I hope isn’t defining of access to a phase 2 development. The developers representative and planning officer assured the meeting it was just to enable maintenance access to a field and in the planning amendment described as a turning point but I’m a bit cynical as you can probably tell.
Parking will still be allowed on Wrights Lane so we can expect something like the one way ‘honour’ system in place on the central part of Heath Road. So Cheshire East get 170k to fill the budget black hole to spread it around and we on Heath road will notice very little benefit locally other than some budget may not be cut as much as it might be. And once the development finishes we will all locally be leaving home a little earlier to go to work and school to allow time to pass the junction and once we get the inevitable double yellow lines so the new estate can get its bins get emptied and larger van deliveries, our own local ability to park near home will be a little worse and the shops a little less convenient. Sustainable planning policies in action !
And of course with a similarly questionable Muller decision we’ve given CE future income of nearly £1m in the coming year or so from Heath and East ward; so thanks to us just £99m to find and no new schools or other services planned.
I wish all those HGV drivers entering Wrights Lane good luck and keen steering.
Tim Wheatcroft
Sandbach Heath
