An informal account of the meeting, which does not
represent formal minutes.
Present: Parish Councillors,
Margaret Hollins (Cheshire East councillor), site owner, agent of site owner,
about 40–50 members of the public
Chair: Meeting has been brought
forward by a week because of the date at which comments are required. Explained
that the role of the Parish Council in planning applications is merely to send
comments; it is not the planning authority. Members of the public with comments
regarding the application should address them as formal comments to Cheshire
East Planning Authority. Such comments are more highly regarded by the planning
authority than petitions. Introduced Margaret Hollins from Cheshire East and
the agent of the site owner.
Agent: Displayed site plan showing
the existing fishing lakes, access route, and 34 timber-clad lodges. The idea
that the units were caravans with timber cladding was a misapprehension of the
application. Explained that high-quality landscaping of the site would be
carried out, especially around the edges and in sensitive areas. The scheme was
low density and therefore had reduced impact. He displayed a picture of an
example of the type of lodge proposed.
Resident: Questioned how the site’s
sewage would be treated.
Agent: There would be an on-site
sewage treatment plant. This would be of the circular rotating type. Treated
sewage would drain into a local water course.
Resident: Questioned location of water
course.
Agent: This was a local brook
which eventually drained into the River Weaver.
Resident: Brought up the risk of
flooding, given that the brook currently floods frequently.
Agent: Flood risk assessment had
been carried out and there was no extra risk of flooding.
Resident: Questioned whether lodges
were intended to be residential.
Agent: The lodges were holiday
lodges and were not intended for people to live in.
Resident: Commented that families
holidaying in lodges would not be compatible with the use of the site for
fishing – children playing would not be quiet.
Several residents: Queried wildlife assessment
as barn owls and kestrels were known to be nesting in the adjacent field.
Agent: A detailed survey of the
wildlife had been carried out; in particular he mentioned the newt population.
The impact on wildlife would be nil or beneficial because of the provision of a
wider range of environments. [No specific comment on barn owls or kestrels.]
Councillor: Asked for details of
administration building mentioned in the application.
Agent: Stated that the building
had not yet been designed. It would be designed only if the application were
successful. No permanent residents were envisaged.
Resident: Queried the mix of letting
to sale in the lodges.
Agent: There would be a mix of sold
units and let units.
Resident: Questioned the policy on
subletting.
Agent: There was no intent to
restrict subletting on the part of the applicant. This would be up to the
council to restrict.
Resident: Questioned what the double units
mentioned in the planning application represented.
Agent: Clarified that each lodge
represented a double unit, which would be occupied by a single family, so the
site would accommodate 34 families not 68 at maximum occupancy. Stated that
national studies suggested that the maximum occupancy of such developments was
45%.
Resident: Queried requirement for 150
car-parking spaces if only 45% occupancy of 34 family units.
Agent: Clarified that parking
requirements were for two different enterprises, the day fishing use (from
previous accepted application) and the residential lodges.
Resident: Read out statement:
·
He
and his wife were the owner of the access track referred to in the application.
·
It
was a gravel/stone/hardcore single-track farm access track which was built over
peat.
·
It
served his farm which consisted mainly of free-range hens and pony breeding.
·
It
was maintained wholly by them and required maintenance every 3–4 months because
of sinking into the peat underneath.
·
There
was no public right of way. It was completely unsuitable for the proposed
commercial use.
·
He
and his wife were not prepared to give permission for the track to be improved
or altered.
·
They
had not been given proper information about the development.
·
The
right of access enjoyed by the owner of the land under planning consideration
was for farming the land and not for other uses.
·
Feed
wagons and egg removal absolutely required access to the track to be
continuous; a 2 day window at most existed if it were contemplated to re-lay the
track on proper foundations.
Agent: Disputed the point about
information, stating that he had written to them. Declined to comment on the
legal right of way situation.
Resident: Brought up wildlife impact
again, particularly mentioning barn owls and kestrels.
Agent: Stated that 5 car movements
per hour were the estimated average use. The source of this estimate was to be
found in the Highway Engineers report on the planning portal. In further
questioning it was clarified that:
·
This
estimate of 5 car movements per hour represented an incremental total on the
unknown number of car movements for the 80 parking spaces previously approved
appertaining to the fishery, which the Agent agreed do not currently exist.
·
It
related to the use of the day fishery only. The car movements associated with
the lodge occupation for holiday use had not been estimated and would be on top
of this figure.
Resident: Questioned passing places.
Agent: At least one passing place
currently exists, but is not yet surfaced. This is on the applicant’s land.
Resident: Queried how passing places
on the access roads would be provided – compulsory purchase? [No response
from Agent/Site Owner]
Councillor: Queried the site’s business
model. What price are ‘caravans’ sold at? What letting price is envisaged?
Agent: Stated he had no idea in
this specific case. Similar developments were priced at £100–150,000 per lodge.
[No comment on the letting price.] Stated that no business model had yet
been formulated. Also no decision on what proportion of the units would be let
versus sold.
Resident: Commented that there was no
mechanism to prevent all-year occupation by a single tenant.
Agent: Stated it was up to the
council to patrol this aspect. There was a legal requirement for a log of
people living there, so that the council could act if there was a breach of the
holiday-only usage.
Several residents and a
council member
expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of this method of management.
Resident: Queried expansion plans.
Agent: There was no intent at the
moment to expand but it could not be ruled out in future. There were extra
areas owned by the applicant that were not being used by the current proposal.
This would need a further planning application. Stressed that the development
was intended to be a high-quality, low-density scheme.
Resident: Stated that this might be
true compared with urban developments, but the density was actually high
relative to the very low local population density. For example the civil parish
of Marbury had a total population of around 200 in 2006 over an area of over
2000 acres.
·
Stressed
that the current site had no landscaping, it was just ponds with mounds of
earth, so any previous landscaping requirements of the earlier planning
application had not been met.
Resident: Queried the status of the Wrenbury Fishery company.
Agent: Clarified that Wrenbury Fishery has never traded.
Resident: Stated that there was a large amount of traffic
currently at the junction between New Road and Nantwich Road.
Resident: Queried the piecemeal approach to the planning
applications, with the earlier fishery application and the current holiday
lodge accommodation.
Agent: Stated that there was no deliberate tactic of
making piecemeal applications. Denied that there was the submission of
incremental schemes to the planning authority. He had not been involved in the
previous fishery application.
·
Highway
Engineering had agreed details of access and the traffic count performed on
behalf of the applicant.
Several residents: Stressed that Hollyhurst
Road was a particularly narrow and dangerous lane even compared with the many
single-track lanes in the area.
·
Despite
the low speeds used by cars used to the conditions, many cars drive at 50–60
mph, forcing cars and pedestrians into the hedges, and this is particularly
perceived as a problem with drivers unfamiliar with the lane’s dangers.
·
There
is a blind junction at the Wrenbury Road end and a particularly narrow section
immediately adjacent to the access track.
·
Horse-riders
are particularly common on Hollyhurst Road because there is an existing livery
stables near the proposed development site. This business would be adversely
affected if increased traffic prevented horses from safely using the lane.
·
The
lanes are also commonly used by walkers, dog-walkers and cyclists, including
children walking to the primary school in Wrenbury.
·
Large
vehicles commonly use the lanes including tractors, milk lorries and chicken
lorries.
·
Increased
traffic on the narrow and heavily used Pinsley Green Road was also mentioned.
Resident: Questioned whether the use of public transport
would approach the levels mentioned in the transport report.
Agent: Obviously all that the owner could do would be to
promote the use of public transport.
Resident: Suggested providing fewer parking spaces as an
incentive.
Agent: A minibus service would be provided to drive
holidaymakers on excursions, for example to visit local pubs.
Resident: Expressed concern about the suitability of
minibuses for local lanes.
Resident: Enquired where the figures for number of cars came
from.
Agent: Figures were from similar types of development; the
details were in the transport statement.
Resident: Enquired whether a risk assessment had been carried
out regarding deaths from drowning in children because of the close proximity
of the holiday lodges to the ponds.
Agent: No risk assessment had yet been carried out. This
would be performed if planning permission were granted.
Councillor: Expressed sympathetic views towards the need of
farmers to diversify the use of their land away from purely agricultural.
However, commented that this development appeared to be on a substantially
greater scale than other change from agricultural use developments previously
considered by the Parish Council. Questioned whether the land that was not part
of the current development proposal would be farmed, perhaps by leasing to a
farmer. [No comment from Agent/Site Owner]
Resident: Expressed concern about the value of surrounding
housing being decreased by the development.
Agent: Stated that this was not a planning matter and was
not included in the factors considered according to advice from government.
Several residents: Stated that people tended to live in the
area because of the peace and quiet.
Resident: Commented that the units could be 100% sold and
this could lead to year-round usage.
Agent: As units would be restricted to holiday usage, sold
units would be likely to be more lightly occupied than let units.
Resident: Stressed need for the planning authority to
prohibit subletting.
Resident: Raised question of the maintenance of the access
track in terms of cost of maintenance 4–5x per year.
Site owner: Expressed willingness to make small cash payments
towards maintenance.
Resident: Expressed concern over the ability of Wrenbury
facilities to cope with the volume of business, in particular relating to the
existing traffic/parking problems around the Wrenbury post office/village
store, the difficulty of getting a table for a pub meal at peak times, and the
traffic congestion around the primary school at pick-up and collection times.
Chair: Summarised the follow-up actions of Wrenbury Parish
Council — the Parish Council would make comments to Cheshire East which will be
published on the planning website.
Margaret Hollins: The decision would be made ~4 August at a
hearing at Macclesfield. The public could attend the hearing, but only the
applicant and objectors who had applied in advance of the meeting could speak.
Applications to make objections in person at the meeting must be received 3
days in advance of the meeting, and could be rejected if multiple applications
were received.
Resident: Complained that the notification of the application
had been inadequate. Cheshire East had only notified those in Yew Tree Barns,
and not those directly affected by the application such as on the access roads
or at Pinsley Green, the nearest settlement. There were no planning application
notices on the access track or at the public footpath which crosses the site.
The Parish Council had done nothing to notify residents of such a large
planning application within the CP.
Councillors: Clarified that it was not the role of the Parish
Council to notify residents about planning applications. The plans were
available at the Planning Portal website and lists of applications were
available at parish noticeboards and in the appropriate pages of local
newspapers. Cheshire East was not legally obligated to notify residents either.
7 April 2010