Town Council Planning Committee: 14th January 2014
Attendance of Michael Jones, Leader of Cheshire East Council
Resident’s Issues raised with Councillor Jones
Residents asked a number of excellent questions around the following major
issues:
The ‘unfairness’ of Alsager being targeted for 50% growth in housing
allocation
The lack of employment in Alsager as a Key Service Centre
Poor infrastructure already, let alone to underpin such growth
No serious Infrastructure Plan from Cheshire East Council to address
these infrastructural issues
The ‘imposition’ of the projected development on White Moss Quarry
that did not take account of factual evidence
The reference to moving sports facilities from the MMU site in the Core
Strategy (Para. 15.185) and the removal of the reference to onsite
educational provision as a potential use for this site.
Why had the Local Plan taken so long?
If it is due to be submitted, as claimed by Councillor Jones, by the end
of February what are the numbers for Alsager in terms of housing?
When challenged, Councillor Jones declared himself to have no
financial interests or assets within Cheshire East; nor was he a Mason.
A request was made by the vice chair of ARAG requesting his
attendance at a further meeting " which would be organised by us " at a
time and place to allow a further opportunity to those unable to gain
access to Tuesday nights important meeting. This would allow further
questions to be put to him and his officials, by those deprived of the
opportunity to do so on Tuesday, on issues and concerns about what is
likely to be a fundamental change to all our lives in Alsager.
Cllr Jones gave us an assurance that he would be willing to do so,
although he later said “so long as the Town Council agreed to its
arrangements”.
Councillor Jones’s Responses
There is an allocation of land at Radway Green for employment
purposes and the objective is to ensure that real jobs in manufacturing
are generated and the land not just allocated for Distribution Centres
off the M6. He referred to the creation of ‘3500 jobs’ and ‘real jobs for
young people’. It remains unclear as to how these intentions would be
underpinned by any Council strategy to make them a reality.
He referred to the Sedgefield and Liverpool methods for ‘catching up’
on the housing backlog over 5 years or 20 years respectively. It is our
view that this is a red herring as it has always been clear that the
Government advocated the Sedgefield shorter methodology
He agreed that the housing allocation for Alsager was ‘unfair’ and
referred on more than one occasion to the alleged 100% increase in
his own ward as if this were a justification.
He stated that there were ‘serious issues with White Moss Quarry’
and that the Council would be looking closely at these issues. He was
also reminded about the decisions that had been taken about WMQ as
recently as 2008 when it was argued there was a shortage of
aggregate recycling.
He confirmed that Cheshire East Council will ‘fight’ the Dunnocksfold
Road site appeal
He stated that ‘We would never support 3000 houses’ in Alsager
When questioned about the infrastructure issues, especially roads and
transport, he offered to ‘come and work with you’ to address these
issues.
When asked about the delay in producing the Local Plan Councillor
Jones blamed the Local Government Review which had led to the
creation of Cheshire East out of three previously separate local
government bodies.
Questioned about the MMU site, Councillor Jones offered the
following contradictory responses. On the one hand, MMU own the site
and - oddly and not very convincingly – it was alleged that MMU was
responsible for the wording of the Core Strategy document which
removes the reference to education on the site and the removal of the
sports pitches and facilities to Crewe. On the other hand, he declared
that the pitches and facilities including the Dance Hall ‘will stay’
and this is ‘non-negotiable’. He stated clearly that ‘the Pitches need
to stay in their entirety.’
Councillor Jones claimed that a ‘robust’ Local Plan would be
submitted to the Department for Communities and Local
Government for assessment by the end of February.
When questioned about the housing allocation for Alsager contained in
this Local Plan he repeatedly refused to respond. He claimed that there
were legal reasons why he could not say anything more publicly about
this or about White Moss Quarry
Town Councillor Questions
Following the public participation session Council members of the Planning
Committee were offered the opportunity to question Councillor Jones
Councillor Hough raised a number of questions with Councillor Jones
including reference to the ‘duty to cooperate’ with other Local
Authorities. Unfortunately this quickly turned into an aggressively
‘political’ and somewhat incomprehensible wrangle initiated by
Councillor Jones on this occasion
Councillor Shirley Jones raised the issue of wastewater and poor
performance by United Utilities in the Town. This would be a significant
issue for any further development and it is to be noted that even the
Cheshire East Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan indicates capacity
issues in wastewater
Councillor Longhurst pressed Councillor Jones on the MMU issues
as his statements in the public session could not be supported from
Cheshire East documents that had been published in November. He
also referred to the fact that CE officers are justifying acceptance of
sites that had been previously rejected because of the ‘benefits to the
housing land supply’. This ran counter to the advice from the
Inspector’s Report on Sandbach Road North which stated that ‘the lack
of a five year supply of housing land does not provide an automatic
‘green light’ to planning permission’.
Conclusion
It is likely that many residents will have found the meeting to be unsatisfactory
and unconvincing. In part, this may be attributed to the inappropriate venue
and the crowded room but also because the responses from Councillor Jones
were very much those of the ‘politician’. At times he appeared to be
aggressive, patronising and unnecessarily confrontational.
Residents may have welcomed some of the statements and reassurances
that he offered but it remains to be seen whether there is any substance
behind the rhetoric. Those who attended will have reached their own
conclusions about the credibility of the assurances offered.
There must be a degree of scepticism that there will be a ‘robust’ Local Plan
submitted for assessment by the end of February, given the experiences of
this process to date and the quality of the existing documentation.
We can, however, all hope that this is the case and that this ‘robust’ plan
provides an intelligent, reflective and analytical framework for the future of our
community.
No comments:
Post a Comment