Like many councillors, not to mention members of the public, I’m not too enamoured with the planning system and its many faults and frustrations, but credit where it’s due - it can do the job.

Two recent examples in Cheadle:

• an advertising hoarding had been erected on the side wall of the Village Deli (next to the old BT building) without planning permission.  When a resident brought it to my attention, I put in a request to Planning Enforcement at the Council.  They gave the owner of the building a few weeks to take it down and down it came.
• Stockport Homes had erected a large sign in at the front of Queens Gardens.  A resident complained and planning looked into it.  In the end, Stockport Homes withdrew their planning application.  I checked a couple of months later and the sign was still there.  I let the planning department know and now it’s gone.

There are a few other planning enforcement issues Pam and I are pursuing - we’ll see how they go.

The Cheadle Area Committee heard a planning application from Kentucky Fried Chicken on Tuesday.  They’d previously installed a change to the top section of the extraction duct and moved condensors, and they’re looking for retrospective approval.

There were several concerned residents (Warren Avenue and Dixon Court are most affected).  The complaints were about the noise and the smell.

The environmental issues are complicated by there being three takeaways on that parade, so it’s not certain which are responsible (and it may be all three).  In terms of this planning application, we could only talk about KFC and only about what they’d actually applied for.

The planning officers had recommended a condition for approval that the noise from KFC not exceed the existing background noise by more than 5 decibels.  That sounds sensible to me, and would also give residents an important new legal avenue to force KFC to comply.

The committee decided that it was important to see, hear and smell what was going on before a decision was made (especially as one resident was concerned some of the photos we’d been given were misleading).

There will be a site visit by councillors on 2nd September after which the decision will be taken by the Council’s Planning & Highways committee that evening.  The Planning & Highways committee meets at the Town Hall at 6pm on 2nd September.  Members of the public are welcome to attend but can’t speak in the meeting.

View Dixon Court in a larger map

I’ve been told today that the Planning & Highways Committee approved the application for a new pizza takeaway on the parade of shops by the High Grove pub, Silverdale Road, Gatley.

As I understand it, concerns about odours and litter have been addressed by the applicant and in the conditions applied, so there were no valid grounds to reject it.

Locally I think it’s fair to say opinion is divided.  Some people have told me they’re concerned about another take-away.  Others note that there’s nothing similar nearby and welcome a take-away in that local parade.

View Proposed take-away on Silverdale Road, Gatley in a larger map

Pam and I will, as always, be keeping an eye on developments and looking to ensure there aren’t problems with litter, smells, parking or traffic along the road.

Pam King and I have been working for some time to improve the condition of the alleyway running from Gatley station past Brentwood Drive down to Gatley Road.

First we had fence panels leaning out dangerously - which the Council quickly removed when we let them know (the panels aren’t owned by the Council).

Since then there have been the resulting gaps in the fence and rubbish dumped onto the property behind the fence - not great!

Pam and I have been pursuing a couple of different routes to get the landowner to resolve the situation, via planning enforcement and the area conditions officer.

I’m glad to say that, after inspecting the site, the Council’s Planning Enforcement team have issued the owner of Summerfield Court with a notice to sort out the problem by 31st August:

1. Remove all litter and waste items deposited on the land;
2. Remove from the land all broken fence panels and
3. Replace the broken fence panels with those of a match in height of the existing fence panels.

I’ve received notification that O2 and Vodafone, working together, are looking to site a new phone mast near the junction of Kingsway and Broadway in Cheadle.

The mast will look like a lamp-post, but with a fattened top instead of a lamp, and with a couple of cabinets at the base of the mast (similar to the one in the picture, which is just an example I found on the Internet, so don’t bother trying to spot the location).

If you have an opinion about a phone mast being sited at this location, please let me know.

If it was me living nearby, I personally would be fine with it (we’ve had a big 3G mast right next to the Scout Hut for several years and I can’t say it’s ever caused us any issues).

This map shows the proposed location of the phone mast.  It’s on the main carriageway side of the bushes.

View Kingsway phone mast in a larger map

The Council has received a planning application for a new pizza takeaway on the parade of shops (well - parade of shop now, since the others are closed) at the southern end of Silverdale Road in Gatley.

You can read the details, and comment, here.

I’ve been contacted by both a concerned resident and by the applicant.  As usual, I need to stay open-minded at this stage to comply with planning law, if I want to end up being allowed to take part in the decision.

Issues the planning officers are likely to be considering include whether there’s an impact on traffic, parking, noise, smell & the state of the area both to the general area and to residents living in the flats above the parade.

The location is close to the High Grove Pub, a little under a mile from Gatley and Heald Green centres.

View Proposed take-away on Silverdale Road, Gatley in a larger map

An application to permit the jewellers at 9 Wilmslow Road, Cheadle, to be converted into a restaurant, snack bar or cafe was rejected by all councillors at the Cheadle Area Committee on Tuesday, after I called it up.

The applicant is the owner of the property who wanted to improve it’s marketability by having the option for additional uses.

In this case, the application breached the Council policy that the percentage of retail units along certain sections doesn’t fall below 80%.

The current occupiers of 9 Wilmslow Road - the tenants who run the jewellers - objected to the proposal.

An application has been submitted to the Council to convert the launderette at 78 Church Road, by Gatley Green, to a take-away/pizza delivery.

As usual, I won’t comment on this as, were I to come out for or against at this stage, I might not be able to participate in taking the decision if it comes before the councillors.  However, both Pam and I are concerned about having too many take-aways and fast food places in our villages.  There are provisions in our planning rules to stop that happening, though there’s a debate to be had on whether they go far enough.

You can view the application here.  As there are already seven objections, the application will either be rejected by the planning officers, or will come to Cheadle Area Committee to be considered by councillors.

Although it’s in Manchester, not Stockport, I’ve received a letter from Rank Group proposing a new casino on the site of the old bingo hall at Parrs Wood.  I’ve scanned in the letter so click on the thumbnail images below to see it in full.

You’ll see there are four public consultation sessions in July with Rank Group proposing to submit a planning application in August.

The proposal to convert Abney Hall into an independent school has been withdrawn by the applicants.

As the site is privately owned by Bruntwood, and of course can continue to have offices there without any further permission required, it’s up to Bruntwood what they seek to do next.

Your local councillors - in Cheadle & Gatley and Cheadle Hulme North wards - will be seeking to get a positive outcome and to ensure that the house is preserved and the park remains open for public use as it is now.

The next Cheadle Area Committee will be held at Ladybridge Park Residents Club, Edenbridge Road, Cheadle Hulme starting at 6pm on Tuesday 22nd June 2010.  You can download the (unusually short at only 61 pages) agenda here.

As always, the meeting is not only open to the public, but we really want more people to come along.  You can turn up late if you like, and you can ask questions of the police, council and councillors (though where there’s no agenda item the question fits into, it needs to be submitted in advance - you can send it by email to stephen.fox@stockport.gov.uk if you like.

Tuesday’s agenda includes

• Brief presentation from Inspector Steve Gilbertson of West Stockport Area police and his colleagues, plus the opportunity to ask questions and raise issues directly with Steve and his team.
• Update from Julie Henshall, our Area Conditions Officer, who deals with issues like graffiti, fly-tipping and littering - you can ask Julie questions.
• Update from Rod Camblin from Highways - he’s the guy who goes around checking potholes and dodgy pavements, marking them up with orange paint and getting them fixed - you can ask Rod questions too.

Then we have the planning applications.  These are quasi-judicial, which means there are rules we follow and a set way things are done to ensure the outcome is fair.

This time round councillors will be considering:

• DC044007 - application for change of use of 9 Wilmslow Road, Cheadle from retail premises to class A3 (restaurant, snack bar and cafe use).  The recommendation from the planning people is to refuse this on the grounds that we already have too many of that type of premises in the area.
• DC044066/DC044125 - conversion and alteration of existing listed farm buildings to five dwellings on Ladybridge Farm, Ladybridge Road.  The planning officers are recommending we grant that one.
• DC044147 - single storey rear extension to 17 Oaktree Cottages, Anfield Road, Cheadle Hulme.  Officers are recommending we grant that one too.

In all cases with planning applications, councillors have (by law) to go into the meeting with an open mind and listen fairly to the arguments.  Our task is not to decide whether we fancy having the development, or whether its popular.  Our task is simply - again by law - to decide whether the development is within the rules and guidelines as set down in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

If we refuse an application, the developer can appeal and - if successful - the Council pays lots of money for the appeal costs and the development goes ahead anyway, so it’s worth getting it right.

Following a complaint from a local resident, I asked the Council’s Planning Enforcement team to check the appearance of an advertising hoarding on Cheadle High Street - on the side wall of Cheadle Deli by the old BT building.

Hoardings like that need planning permission, and it’s in the conservation area. I had a look on the online planning system and couldn’t find anything.

The Enforcement people have now come back and confirmed that no planning has been applied for. They’ve written to the owner, Wrexham Signs, informing them that it must be removed by 23rd June. If it isn’t, appropriate action (which may include legal action) can be taken.

Press release from Mark Hunter:

Local MP Mark Hunter has hailed the Liberal Democrat/Conservative Coalition’s announcement on giving local councils powers to prevent the building of new homes in back gardens as “a great success”.

Many local residents have contacted Mr Hunter concerned about the number of new houses being built in gardens due to their classification as “brownfield” sites. This means that developers are, in principle, free to use this land to build new properties in the same way that they could with disused factories or railway stations.

Last week, however, the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government signalled that he would change the designation of these sites, giving local authorities more influence over the process.

Commenting, Mark said:
“I have campaigned on this issue over a number of years with residents and the local Lib Dem team and am absolutely delighted we have finally achieved success.

“A number of local residents will share my response and look forward to having a real say when planning applications like this are submitted in future.

“Between 1997 and 2008 over a quarter of new housing across the country has been built on these sites, often with fierce opposition from the surrounding community.

“This announcement is just the first step in a whole reform of a system that favours top-down dictats - it is about time that councils had more freedom to work closely with local people to make the decisions that affect them.

Update 20th June 2010: this planning application has now been withdrawn.

Planning application DC/044096 has been received by the Council - to turn Abney Hall from offices into a school. The application can be viewed online, at Cheadle Library or at Hygarth House in Stockport.

For those interested, this document on the Council website seems to me to give the best overview of the proposals.

This is a planning application to be decided by councillors at the Cheadle Area Committee next Tuesday. I “called it up” for councillors to consider. Here’s what the application says (there’s more information in the paperwork):

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Proposal relates to a retrospective change of use from a shop with first floor flat to a
social, educational and welfare centre. The premises are intended as a meeting
rooms for the local Muslim community where they will discuss and develop cultural
issues and Islamic beliefs. The applicant has indicated that their aims and objectives
are to use the centre for:

i. Teaching of welfare/cultural needs to children and adults.

ii. Islamic teaching of the Quran (Koran) to children and adults. The applicant has
indicated that until planning permission is granted, they will not introduced the
children’s teaching element.

iii. Prayer. The applicant has emphasised that the unit should not be confused with a
Mosque which has more intensive prayer times. He has indicated that the nearest
mosque is in Heald Green.

* Hours of use are 7.30am to 9.00pm for adults.(REFER NOTE). These are the
earliest and latest times as people will visit at any time for periods varying from 30
minutes to 1 hour and are intended to be flexible to meet individual needs. Children
will have access during the following times:
4.00pm to 7.00pm Monday to Friday and 10.00am to 2.00pm on Saturdays, Sundays
and Bank Holidays.

NOTE: The applicant originally applied for 7.00am opening but has agreed to
7.30am following comments of Environmental Health

* Two part time people will be employed and they will be involved with teaching
children.

* In terms of visitor numbers, the applicant has indicated that there is an open
session for adults when people can come and go as and when they please. As such
the number may be little as one. The most he has ever seen in the unit any one time
is 12. Normally, there are no more than 18-20 spread out throughout the day
although some maybe the same people making a return visits. In terms of children
he expects there to be a minimum of 4-5 and a possible maximum of 10 -12

*. The use commenced in August 2009

The layout indicates the ground floor to consist of a meeting room with
washing/showering and toilet facilities with 3 smaller meeting rooms and a kitchen on
the first floor. The total floorspace of the meeting rooms is approximately 78 sq
metres.

In terms of parking, the applicants have access to two garages at the rear but have
indicated that these will be demolished and the land used as parking space. Other
than that, any visitors arriving by car will have to park on-street or in the service
layby fronting the unit.

Following complaints from residents, Cllr Pam King asked the Council’s Enforcement team to investigate vehicles being sold in front of 1 Stonepail Road.

The Enforcement team have investigated and we’ve now heard back that selling vehicles is not permitted from those premises.  The owner was given fourteen days to remove the vehicles or further action will be taken.

I spent today in the appeal over the Tatton cinema site.  The developers were appealing against the Council’s rejection of plans for a small supermarket and a care home.

The short report is that the Inspector heard both sides, had a site visit and will make his decision in around six weeks time.

Now for the slightly longer version.

This was  my first planning appeal - I had a general idea of what to expect, but no more.

We gathered in Committee Room 3 at the Town Hall.  There were five people from the developers’ side, four councillors, a few council officers, and a few other people (including four other Gatley residents - three against the development and one for).

It was a small enough group that we could all sit around one large table, and everyone was able to have their say.

Parts of the meeting got very technical, with the experts from each side throwing around obscure acronyms and quoting bits of the Development Plan we base planning decisions on.

Others were more understandable, and no-one was forced into technical jargon - we were able to make our points in plain English.

We have no idea about the outcome. The Inspector heard our arguments and will now go away and reach his decision.

The issues that were considered were:

• The effect on the living conditions of future residents of a care home, with regard to amenity space and  noise.
• Disabled parking
• Over-development of the site
• The effect on the conservation area
• Traffic
• Viability of the local centre

There was substantial discussion over issues such as the amount of amenity space around the care home (and a rather technical discussion about the definition of “amenity space”), the noise from delivery lorries to a supermarket, parking spaces in front of the Tatton and wider traffic issues with the complexity of the junctions.

If anyone would like to know more detail, I’ll happy to provide it; but for now all we can do is wait.

As we reported in our recent Keeping in Touch leaflet, the Tatton site developers have now launched a formal appeal.

The proposal being appealed is to have a large convenience store in the cinema building, limited parking at the front and a care home at the rear.  This was rejected by councillors back in the spring.

To quote from the letter being sent out to local residents:

The appeals to be decided at Informal Hearing to be heard by an Inspector appointed by the First Secretary of State.  I will inform you of the date and venue in due course.

Any comments that you made to the Council at the application stage will be sent to the Planning Inspectorate and taken into account before he or she reaches their decision.

If you wish to make any additional comments you may do so by sending 3 copies to The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/18A, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN within 6 weeks from 09/12/2009.  Please quote reference APP/C4235/A/09/2117976/NWF for Planning Permission Refusal and APP/C4235/E/09/2118090/NWF for Conservation Area Consent Refusal.

The Planning Inspectorate have introduced an online appeals service which you can use to comment on this appeal.  You can find the service through the Appeals area of the Planning Portal.   The Inspectorate may publish details of your comments on the internet (on the Appeals area of the Planning Portal).  Your comments may include your name, address, email address or phone number.  Please ensure that you only provide information, including personal information belonging to you, that you are happy will be made available to others in this way.  If you suply information belonging to a third party, please ensure you have their permission to do so.

There’s more information on taking part in this nine page PDF.

Thanks to everyone at last night’s Cheadle Village Partnership.  We had an excellent discussion about Stockport’s Core Strategy (12 days to go to register your opinions wih the Council).  I was impressed that more than one person had made the heroic effort to read the strategy document, and people had some excellent questions and points.

Other than that, I spent too much time speaking to take notes (sorry!) so I’ll have to wait for the AboutMyArea report.

My bundle of papers today includes a proposal for extending mobile phone coverage from a mast on the Brookfield Business Park, off Brookfield and Demmings Roads in Cheadle.

Vodafone currently have a mast situation on the business park with 2G and 3G antennas.  The proposal is to replace these with dual user tri-band 2G/3G Vodafone and Telefonica O2 antennas mounted on the existing headframe, and for an additional control cabinet at ground level.

If you’d like more information about this, just let me know.

Sorting out a public meeting for residents to discuss the options for improving the Schools Hill/Wilmslow Road junction in Cheadle has proven to be a little trickier than I’d thought - but all part of being a new councillor, I guess.

On Tuesday at the Cheadle Area Committee, I asked for the public meeting and it was approved.  I’ve now got to chase it up and get the thing organised.

I’ve pretty much got all the information to bring along to it, so should be soon.

I’m running a series of posts to summarise over 400 pages of documents in way that helps those who live and work in Stockport Borough understand the issues we’re facing, the options we have and the Council proposals in how the Borough develops over the next 17 years.

This is the third post.  You can read my overview plus my piece on  the Accessibility Appraisal paper.  This one covers the Core Strategy DPD Preferred Options Consultation, which you can read in full, and comment on, here.

This time I’m trying to condense 140 pages into a few hundred words - wish me luck.

What issues is the strategy trying to tackle?

Although both the population of Stockport Borough and the amount of traffic has fallen slightly in the last few years, we don’t expect that to continue.   The Government is asking Stockport to provide 450 new dwellings (houses or flats) every year - that’s over 7,000 by 2026.

At the same time Stockport, like everywhere, has issues to tackle with how things are now.   We’re the third most polarised borough in the country with pockets of deprivation and much more affluent areas.  Our main roads are congested. Stockport Town Centre isn’t all it could be.  Lots of people live in the Borough and travel out for work, with lots more living outside and travelling in.  And, in common with most other areas, we have an aging population and a lack of affordable housing.

The general approach

So we expect to have thousands of new flats and houses, which means (over time), more shops, offices, schools, sport, leisure, culture and health facilities and cemetaries.  Where should they all go?

This was the subject of a previous consultation.  Different options were looked at and the conclusion was, in the main, to strengthen existing centres.  By far the most development is planned for Stockport Town Centre.  Another big chunk goes into the District Centres and the Large Local Centres, with a smaller amount elsewhere.

Stockport has 8 District Centres: Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme, Bramhall, Edgeley, Hazel Grove, Marple, Reddish and Romiley.  It has 10 Large Local Centres: Gatley, Heald Green, Moor Top, Heaton Moor, Shaw Road/Heaton Moor Road, Heaton Chapel, Davenport, Great Moor, North Reddish and Marple Bridge.

Housing

There’s more to this than just building lots of houses and flats.  How big should they be?  How expensive?  Where should they go?

The proposal in this strategy paper is

• a 50/50 split between houses and flats overall, with most flats going in the Town Centre (which will end up with a much higher population) and most houses going around the District and Large Local Centres.
• The majority of the flats to have two bedrooms.
• 40% of new housing to be affordable for those on lower incomes.
• 80% of new housing to be in existing buildings and previously developed land.
• More social rented housing for Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme, Cheadle, Edgeley, Davenport, Marple, Romiley and the Heatons.
• If Woodford Aerodrome becomes vacant, using it wholly or partially for housing is one of several options.
• Stockport currently has no formal Gypsy and Traveller pitches.  Following Government guidance, we are expected to create 35, plus another ten travelling showpeople pitches.  This should increase to 57 pitches in total by 2026 and they should be be in urban areas with good access to services.
• 50% of the new dwellings to be in the Central Housing Area, with up to 2,000 in the Town Centre (the Central Housing Area is the Town Centre plus some areas around it).
• A further 35% of new dwellings to be within walking distance of District and Large Local centres.
• 15% of dwellings to be built elsewhere.

Reducing the size of some struggling centres

Even in the recession, most of our District and Local Centres are doing OK, including Cheadle, Gatley, Bramhall and Heald Green.  Walk around them and you won’t see many empty units.

Some are suffering more, including Hazel Grove and Edgeley.  For these, one option is to reduce the size of the centres - for example, by turning retail units at the edges of the centres into residential properties.

For all centres, the paper also offers the option of limiting the number of hot food and fast food outlets either within a centre altogether or near to schools and play areas.

Cemetaries

It may not be something most of us give much thought to, but Stockport’s cemetaries will be full in 10-15 years.  Should we create new cemetaries (if so, where?) or re-use existing ones.

Strengthen District and Local Centres

The overall strategy is to maintain and enhance the Town Centre along with existing District and Local Centres.

Here, I confess, I don’t think the document is very clear (and, in one case, makes a fairly blatant mistake).  The section in question is 7.135 on page 70.  It refers to changes in planning policies.

The paper proposes  controlling the scale, clustering and mix of uses in Centres to meet local needs and enhance the viability of the Centres.  Great in principle, and fine if there are lots of retailers and developers with different schemes.  The problem comes when the commercial environment isn’t quite so strong.

You might want to have a retail outlet in a particular place, but if no retailers want to open there, your real choice might be something else (a take-away, for example) or nothing. It could well be that nothing - an empty unit - is the best choice in some cases, but we should be aware of the issue.

With that in mind, I’m not clear exactly what the paper’s proposing.

Outside Local and District Centres, the paper proposes that we permit a change of use from service to non-service (e.g. offices or residential) unless there’s a good reason not to, as part of the strategy to strengthen the Centres.

In Large Local Centres, the paper says we should restrict the size of new shops and leisure units (where not re-using an existing building) to a maximum of  500 square metres (and 250 square metres in other Local Centres).  For District Centres, the much higher limit of 25,000 square metres is proposed.  (I think incorrect wording results in this paragraph actually saying the opposite of this).

There’s also a sentence which, I think, suggests that a new small convenience store would not be permitted if other local retailers already provide the same services.

Requiring that new convenience shops meeting local needs (up to max 250 square metres) will only be allowed where there are no alternative sustainably accessible facilities.

Again, it not necessarily a problem; but I don’t understand why we’d want to single out convenience shops.  If we’re going to protect that one type of shop from competition, why not protect newsagents, cafes or hairdressers?

Building business

The plan identifies the need to build strong business centres around Stockport, and argues that this should be primarily achieved by enhancing and promoting the Town Centre for new office development.  That fits in with the principle of enhancing the Town Centre overall, and concentrates more traffic flows into the centre (which is the location best served by public transport and car parking).

In particular, the strategy is to attract ICT, digital, creative and new media companies into offices around the A6 south of the M60 - especially in the civic quarter.

There’s also strong office provision in some our District and Local Centres: Bramhall, Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme, Hazel Grove, Stepping Hill and Gatley.  These should be supported.

Heavier industry should have direct access to main access routes (e.g. motorways) without having to go through residential areas.  The Bredbury Industrial Area is given as an example of a location that fits the bill.

The report says that there’s no specific need to find new areas of employment close to deprived areas: either they are there already, or there are good public transport links from those areas to the Town Centre.

Sport, green spaces and leisure

Stockport has an oversupply of senior sports pitches (compared to the Government recommendation for how many we should have) but slightly too few mini soccer facilities.

The report also identifies a shortfall of leisure facilities in the Town Centre, Hazel Grove, Reddish, Romiley and Edgeley, with too few sports halls (relative to the population) in the north and north east of the Borough.

There’s a discussion about our green spaces, both “formal open space” - parks and similar - and other green spaces.

Should we continue the current strategy of retaining a semi-rural character for our river valleys; or should we use that space to meet more formal needs, for example by building sports pitches there?

Overall, though the Cheadle area (Cheadle, Gatley, Heald Green and the northern part of Cheadle Hulme) was identified as having more than enough formal open space (again, compared to Government recommendations), the Borough as a whole falls 105 hectares short.  The Heatons also do well for green space, with Victoria, Tame Valley and Werneth needing improvement.

The plan rejects giving absolute protection to current green space.  It gives the example of the Cheadle Committee area, where there’s lots of formal green space and a shortage of affordable housing.  It suggests the option to swap some should be left open.

Transport

The strategy paper advocates more people living, working and playing in Stockport Town Centre along with our District and Local Centres.  If that’s going to be successful, we need to be able to get to and from those places.

Issues identified include:

• a lack of orbital train links from Stockport to Manchester Airport and Tameside
• a lack of train links between Stockport and some District Centres (Marple, Cheadle) and a general weakness in public transport between Marple and Stockport
• congestion across many of the Borough’s main roads

It notes that there are plans currently in place to improve transport provision, including SEMMMS, aiming to deliver the extended A555 Relief Road by 2016 and rail improvements scheduled to start from 2014.

Other reports and plans are noted including the 2009-2015 Stockport Cycling Strategy,  the Greater Manchester Integration Transport Strategy (GMITS) and the South Pennines Integrated Transport Strategy (SPITS).

Beyond those (which I won’t cover here, but will do at some stage if I have the time), the paper comes up with a selection of ideas that fall some way short of firm proposals:

• we need to shift from single-occupancy car use to more car sharing, cycling,  walking and public transport.
• promote flexible working and home working
• introduce more 20mph zones in residential areas
• improve the network of walking and cycling routes, both direct (normally on-road) and off-road for recreational and less confident cyclists.

Disclaimer

In this post I’ve attempted to summarise Stockport Council’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD) consultation paper.  This is my own work; it is not an official Council or Liberal Democrat summary and I’d be frankly amazed if there weren’t significant omissions and mistakes.   Nothing in this summary should be taken as indicating either my or the Liberal Democrats’ support for, or agreement with, the strategy paper.

The Accessibility Appraisal Consultation Paper is part of Stockport Council’s Core Strategy - how the borough needs to develop over the next 15-20 years.  The document is being consulted on and you have until 25th November to give your opinions.

This is my summary of that paper.  Since the full document is 82 pages, you can take it as read that things are missed out.  Also, this is purely from me reading the document - which you can do too.  I’ve no extra information and I may have made mistakes.  With that in mind, let’s press on.

What’s the purpose of the Accessibility Appraisal? 

We should start off by being clear about what the document is and isn’t trying to achieve.  It doesn’t lay out proposals for what should be done in Stockport.  You won’t find plans to improve a certain bus service, build new housing in a certain area or create a new retail park.

Rather, it attempts to set the scene, to provide the basis for making those proposals, to define the problems that we need to solve and the challenges we need to meet.  Not quite as exciting, but very important.  If you’re not asking the right questions, your chance of coming up with the right answers is pretty low.

What is accessibility?

For this study, “accessibility” is simply how easy it is for people to get to everywhere they need to: their jobs, shops, schools, medical centres, hospitals, pubs, restaurants, leisure facilities, parks and community facilities.

You may reach them by car; but not everyone has a car and, even for those who do, it’s not much good saying the shop’s just down the road if you have to sit in a traffic jam for an hour to get there.  You might also get to them by train, bus, bike or on foot.

The Government is asking for over 7,500 new dwellings to be built in Stockport over the next 17 years, meaning more people and more traffic.

A big part of our challenge is to figure out how to organise that so we get the extra flats and houses in the right places and keep (and improve) this accessibility, for both new and existing residents.

Dealing with inequality

Stockport has relatively high inequality, both between areas in the borough (e.g. compare Brinnington and Bramhall) and within areas (e.g. older people).  It’s very important we provide access for all, not just the wealthier in our community.  We also need to recognise that more deprived areas have different problems, such as poorer health and higher unemployment.

Two examples

Let’s suppose we look at a relatively poor area, and we think it might be a good place to build additional low cost housing too.  So we can predict we’ll have a population who not only need all the usual services and facilities like shops and parks, but will have a higher need for healthcare and certain sorts of jobs.  Additionally, they are less likely to have cars.

For an area like this, it will be very important to ensure safe and reasonably fast access to healthcare, shops, workplaces, entertainment and the rest of it by public transport, walking and cycling.

Alternatively, we can look at a wealthier area with high car ownership.  In this case, it might be more important to look at congestion, to predict where new pinch points in the  road network will emerge and tackle those (for example, through the SEMMMS strategy).

 So what are the problems?

The paper is the result of a big study that looked across the borough, worked out how good access was to all the different services in each place and mapped it.  That was also compared to areas of low car ownership and poor health.

Overall, the picture is clear.  Those of us in the centre, north and north west of the borough have - by and large - the best access to all the different services.  That’s areas like the Town Centre, Cheadle, Gatley, the Heatons, Reddish, Cheadle Hulme and out to Hazel Grove.

Those in the south and east of the borough have the poorest access to services: Bramhall (outside the village centre), Woodford, Romiley, Marple, Bredbury and Offerton, for example.

That’s not necessarily a problem right now: plenty of people choose to live somewhere more rural and happily trade-off being a bit further from the shops against living in their preferred location.

It is a problem, however, where you have a population with poor health and low car ownership who also have poor access to services; or where the roads are getting so congested that drivers can’t get to where they want to go.

So, for example, the study identifies a lack of links from Marple to Stockport Town Centre and congestion around Bramhall Moor as serious issues.  It also expresses concern about the lack of access to services in places like Bredbury Green, Cherry Tree Lane (Romiley) and Marple South (especially Hawk Green).

And to absolutely no-one’s surprise, the study idenfies congestion issues on most of the main roads around the borough.

What’s to be done?

As I said before, this report is about identifying the questions, with the answers still to come, and that’s an important thing to get right.  However, we do get a sniff of what some of the answers might look like.

The study suggests better promoting the Town Centre as  an evening destination.  That means not only having the restaurants, pubs, clubs, cinemas, theatres and the like, but also public transport links that run late into the night.

It also talks about promoting mixed developments (where you have housing, workplaces and other services all in the same area) and more “employment sites” around the borough.  The aim is to reduce the distances people need to travel, which would reduce congestion, not to mention making our lives more pleasant.

For example, the report idenfies Cheadle Royal and Woodford as two such centres, but warns that public transport access to both are currently poor and would need to be improved.

What’s there to consult on?

So far I’ve tried to summarise the content of the report.  This is a consultation and the paper says

Comments are invited on the proposed approach. By way of guidance comments would be welcome in relation to the following questions:
1. Do you agree with the principles behind the approach?
2. Do you think the process is sufficiently transparent to use as a basis for accessibility policies?
3. Do you agree with the emphasis of the approach on public choice rather than just achieving a minimum accessibility standard?
4. Would you like to see this approach applied in support other areas of policy development (such as in education or health service provision)?

What might you say?  You might think the report is about right - if so, it’s worth saying it.  If nothing else, it’ll give the people who wrote it a bit more job satisfaction!

Do you agree that accessibility is the right thing to focus on?  As we look forwards over the next two decades, should we be spending time, money and energy on minimising the travel time for people to get to where they want to go; or is that the wrong goal?

You might feel that it hasn’t got the measures right when looking at accessibility.  As the report admits, it doesn’t identify pinch points in the transport network, nor does it take into account off-road transport routes such as footpaths and cycle paths.

Perhaps you disagree with the idea of trying to bring our jobs closer to our homes and feel that a better solution would be to build a transport network to shuttle people as quickly as possible to Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds and elsewhere to give Stockport residents the widest catchment area for jobs.

Question 3 links into ideas of what the Local Authority - and its partners - are there for.  Is it the job of the public sector to make our transport network as good as it can be, or should we be doing much less (and so needing less money to do it, perhaps resulting in lower Council Tax).

Until 25th November, you can visit the Council’s consultation portal, read the documents, register online and submit comments.  You can also submit your comments by email to planning.policy@stockport.gov.uk.

Disclaimer

In this post I’ve attempted to summarise Stockport Council’s Accessibility Appraisal Consultation Paper. This is my own work; it is not an official Council or Liberal Democrat summary and I’d be frankly amazed if there weren’t significant omissions and mistakes. Nothing in this summary should be taken as indicating either my or the Liberal Democrats’ support for, or agreement with, the strategy paper.

I’ve nothing new to report on the Tatton beyond my last posting, but I wanted to say that it’s something all your councillors are working hard on right now and we’ll let you have more information as soon as there’s something firm.

During a busy morning around Cheadle and Gatley today, I checked out more blocked grids on Gatley Road (now reported), popped into the Gatley Green Co-op and the Foxland Road Spar to check on a couple of issues, went down to Yew Tree Close  to take a look for a forthcoming planning application (DC/042877) and spotted some graffiti on the path from Gatley Golf Club to Troutbeck Road (also now reported).

Here are the details of the grids reported today:

1. Two grids on the south side of Gatley Road, immediately to each side of the railway bridge by Gatley Station.  Both blocked, causing regular large puddles at the junction of Oakwood Avenue and Gatley Road.

2. Ten grids on the north side of Gatley Road between the railway bridge and the Synagogue in Gatley.

3. Grids on the north side of Gatley Road in Cheadle, between Kingsway and Wensley pretty much every grid is blocked.

4. Outside 73 Gatley Road there’s a grid in the centre of the pavement in a dip.  It looks clear, but local residents tell me it’s blocked further down and, because it’s in a dip, causes deep puddles around the entrances to the properties after heavy rain.

5. Outside 79 Gatley Road, grid blocked with grass growing out of it.

Most of the things I get involved with are pretty immediate.  Problems that need fixing as soon as possible, or at most issues like the Kingsway filter that might take a couple of years to sort out.

So thinking about how I see Stockport developing up to 2026 requires a bit of a shift in focus.

That’s the idea behind Stockport Council’s Core Strategy.  Some progress has been made on this and the latest stage is now open for consultation until 25th November.

The issues aren’t simple.

Like everywhere else in the country, Stockport needs to provide new housing (at least 450 dwellings a year - nearly 8,000 by 2026.  That’s a whole Cheadle & Gatley and a bit more besides (we have about 6,500 dwellings in the ward).

What should the mix of housing be?  Where should it be located?  How many flats?  How much social housing?

How do we build the economic future of the borough, providing jobs, education and training for current and future residents?

What needs to be done to attract more people into the Town Centre along with our local and district centres (Cheadle is a district centre, Gatley is a local centre).  How do we ensure not only vibrant retail centres but also the best access for all to leisure, culture, education, health, open space and other community facilities.

How do we protect our open spaces, greenbelt land and heritage?

Stockport is already congested, so how can we get everyone moving even with thousands of extra homes?  What mix of buses, trains, facilities for cyclists and pedestrians and, of course, private car travel is right?

For the next month, you can visit the Council’s consultation portal, read the documents, register online and submit comments.  You can also submit your comments by email to planning.policy@stockport.gov.uk.

The actual consultation documents are fairly involved - together there’s several hundred pages.

So, to get more people involved, I’m currently reading and summarising the different documents - hopefully in a way that draws out the key questions and issues.

First there’s the Accessibility Appraisal.  That document sets the scene - it’s more about defining the issues than coming up with solutions.  It looks at how easy or difficult it is for people to get to where they want to go - to access schools, shops, jobs, leisure and healthcare, for example.

Next is the Core Strategy Consulation, which looks forward over the next 17 years with proposals covering housing, jobs, green spaces, sport and leisure, transport and more.

The other three papers, which I haven’t summarised yet are:

• Core Strategy DPD: Preferred Options - Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report
• Core Strategy DPD: Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal Screening Report
• Core Strategy DPD: Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal Screening Report Annexes

Mornings like this I can live without!

On the Council side, I’ve reported a faulty green light on the traffic lights by the newsagents on Gatley Road, been working on how to crack the parking issues on Oakfield Avenue in Cheadle, chased up the poor condition of the alleyway from Gatley Station past Brentwood Drive to Gatley Road and had a long chat about the Tatton.

Work was an accountancy morning, so less fun.  Now off to have some lunch.

About three weeks ago we asked for your opinions on an idea to have a convenience store and car park on the old Tatton cinema site (instead of the convenience store and care home idea, rejected by the Council a few months ago).

In total, we received 81 replies. 40 were in favour of the proposal, 38 against and three expressed no opinion.

If we can find a proposal which the site’s owners are willing to look at and there’s clear support among Gatley residents, I will pursue it. In this case, fewer than half of those who responded were in favour of this particular proposal.

We will, of course, continue to work positively to find a good solution, but I won’t be pressing for this solution.

I said in my last piece that the developers still have the opportunity to appeal against the rejection of the previous proposal (convenience store and care home). Several people have asked me to explain how this works in more detail.

Stockport Council has rejected the planning application. By law, any rejected application can be taken to appeal with the Planning Inspectorate. If that happens, the developers and the Council each put their cases and the Inspectorate decides whether or not to overturn the decision.

Should the Planning Inspectorate decide to overturn a decision (which it often does), there’s nothing more the Council, local councillors or even an MP can do. Frustrating as it often is, the law is clear.

Earlier this year, Cllr Brian Millard worked hard to represent the will of the majority of local people and put a strong case that the proposal should be rejected, which it was. Should the developers appeal (they have until the end of the year to decide), I will work with Council officers and argue our case as best I can in front of the Planning Inspector, but the final decision will not be ours to make.

Our challenge as councillors is to work with the Council, the site’s owners and local people to find a solution for the site that enhances Gatley, whilst knowing that it could be taken completely out of our hands.

Alongside Pam, I will continue to fight for a positive outcome and to keep you informed of developments.

From Cheadle Village Partnership meeting:

The current aim is for Tescos to open in Cheadle by the end of November, but it may be couple of weeks earlier as work is currently ahead of schedule.

The Church, which owns the site and is developing the upper rooms, is looking for feedback from the community on what could go into the upper rooms (more than you might think, apparently).  There will be open days on Fridays and Saturdays in October and a section should appear on the Church website where you can find out more information.

Here are the planning applications that have come in this week for Cheadle & Gatley ward:

30 OLD HALL ROAD, GATLEY, STOCKPORT, CHEADLE, SK8 4BE SK8 (DC/042905)

New shop front to existing office unit

MORE INFORMATION: http://tinyurl.com/y8ta349
MAP: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=sk8+4be&z=15
WHAT DO YOU THINK?: http://tinyurl.com/yajtge7

8 NANSEN ROAD, GATLEY, STOCKPORT, CHEADLE, SK8 4JL SK8 4JL (DC/042897)

Existing attached garage and rear outhouse to be removed. Erection of two storey and rear single storey extension to detached house with raised patio to rear

MORE INFORMATION: http://tinyurl.com/n7rl5s
MAP: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=sk8+4jl&z=15
WHAT DO YOU THINK?: http://tinyurl.com/oa6pc2

Sign up to get local planning applications by email at planningalerts.com/

Thank you to everyone who’s already taken the time to respond over the ideas that have been floated for the Tatton.  It’s so important that the views of Gatley residents are taken into account - for or against.  If people are against the proposals, we can kick them into touch and save a lot of time.  If in favour, we can take them further.

It’s still early days - if you haven’t sent in your ideas already, please do!

I’ll keep you informed of progress.

As you all know, the local Lib Dem team have been pushing hard to get the best possible outcome for Gatley residents on the future of the privately owned Tatton Cinema site.  Stockport Council refused the recent planning application because of the lack of car parking provision which could have made the situation in Gatley village even worse and because of concerns over the impact of the proposed convenience store on local businesses.

I have been informed that a new possibility has emerged in talks between the Council and the site owner.  I must caution that a formal revised application has yet to be made but this is such a key issue for the village that I believe it is vital that residents’ views are sought and fed in as early as possible.

The new proposal would include retention of the proposed convenience store at the front of the site with the remainder of the site being made available for public parking through a land swap for equivalent land elsewhere in the borough.

Clearly there would need to be significant negotiations and no guarantees can be made at this stage but IF there is strong local support for this solution we will push to achieve it.

Please let me know what you think by emailing me, giving your name and address, plus:

- Whether you would be in favour of the proposals as outlined above (Yes or No)

- Whether you are in favour of the original plans (Yes or No)

Of course, the Developer may yet appeal against the decision to refuse the original planning application and has until the end of the year to do so.  We will keep you informed.

In the last few days a planning application has been received relating to the Cheadle Institute on Cheadle Green (near the war memorial).

I haven’t seen the full details yet, but the summary is “Change of use of basement, mezzanine and first floor to class D1 (non-residential institution)“.

I’ll post more information as soon as I have it.  In the meantime, keep an eye on the application online or drop by Cheadle Library or Hygarth House in Stockport to see the plans on paper.

There’s at least a month until any decision is made.

Great to see work going on at the old Somerfield store in Cheadle which, we’re promised, will open as a new Tesco before the end of October.

I’m very glad to see the issues have been resolved - it’s been frustrating for all concerned.

Good news from Tesco - at last.  We’ve been told that work on the old Somerfield site in Cheadle will start any day now, with a new Tesco Metro scheduled to open by the end of October.

The planning issues have been resolved, so we could really be there this time.

I spent a couple of hours yesterday afternoon with Pam King and Mark Hunter, walking around Gatley and Cheadle.

I showed Mark the small lake that appears outside the Gatley Green Co-op whenever we have hard rain (it was meant to be sorted some time ago, we’re on the case).  We took a look at the clock-tower junction and the Tatton site.

Then in Cheadle we saw the Warwick Mall - the covered shopping parade that runs between Massie Street car park and Cheadle High Street.  I still don’t understand why the Tories failed to support Brian’s efforts to save it.

Onto looking at parking problems - we spent a good deal of time in Ashfield Road, then Oak Road.  Pam told us about the efforts to get improved parking restrictions at the library end of Ashfield (apparently it’s unadopted - the Council doesn’t own the road - and that’s caused complications and made the whole thing take a long time).

We were able to look at a few other places too, before time ran out.  The old Somerfield site is getting more and more frustrating - Tesco have had planning permission to put in their store there for months and I’ve no idea why they’ve chosen to hold off doing the work.