Objection to application 26/1149/FUL - Land To The North West Of Crewe Road, Wistaston, Cheshire East.
Willaston Parish Council Object to the application on the following grounds.
The proposed development under application 26/1149/FUL should be resisted due to its clear encroachment into open countryside and the misleading characterisation of the site and its surroundings within the submitted documentation.
Protection of Areas of Open Space (GS2 Wistaston NDP)
The applicant’s Planning Statement by Statplan Planning and Development (section 2.1) states that the site is bounded by undeveloped land to the north and west, and allotments to the east. This is materially misleading. The applicant’s own Landscape and Visual Appraisal by FPCR Environment and Design (section 4.15) confirms that the Huntsbank allotments are separated from the site by an agricultural field. Furthermore, Policy GS2 of the Wistaston Neighbourhood Plan makes clear that the land to the west and south of the allotments is agricultural land, not allotments. The reality is that the site is surrounded on three of its four sides by agricultural land, reinforcing its strong open countryside character and clear separation from the settlement boundary.
This misrepresentation significantly understates the degree to which the site is physically and visually detached from the settlement. It cannot reasonably be described as “a sustainable location for additional housing development, particularly where growth can be delivered as a logical extension to the existing settlement edge (Section 2.2 of the applicants Planning Statement)” but rather constitutes an incursion into open countryside. This concern is compounded by section 2.2 of the applicant’s Planning Statement, which asserts that the site forms part of Crewe. This is incorrect. The site lies within Wistaston, Nantwich (CW5), not Crewe (CW2), and this is evident in its local governance, postcode, geographical position, and established identity. The attempt to associate the site with Crewe appears to be a deliberate effort to frame the development as part of a larger urban area, thereby downplaying its true countryside context.
Wistaston Settlement Boundary (H4 Wistaston NDP), Green Gap (Policy GG1) and Cheshire East Local Plan, Open Countryside (Policy PG6)
Policy H4 of the Wistaston Neighbourhood Plan is explicit that land outside the defined settlement boundary is to be treated as open countryside, where new housing is strictly controlled. The application site lies outside the Wistaston settlement boundary and is therefore contrary to this policy. Moreover, Policy GG1 (Green Gap) seeks to prevent coalescence between settlements and to maintain openness. The proposal, extending development into land that is surrounded on three sides by countryside, would erode this openness and undermine the strategic separation between built-up areas. The proposed development is also contrary to policy PG 6 Open Countryside of the Cheshire East Local Plan for the same reason.
Sustainability Para 8 and 174 National Planning Policy Framework
In addition, the proposal fails to meet the central test of sustainability set out in paragraphs 8 and 174 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Sustainable development requires the balanced integration of economic, social and environmental objectives, as well as directing growth to appropriate and sustainable locations. In this case, the proposed development would constitute an unsustainable pattern of growth, extending built form into an area that is clearly characterised by open countryside and not representing a logical or well-related extension to the existing settlement boundary.
By encroaching into the Green Gap and conflicting with the policies of the up-to-date Wistaston Neighbourhood Plan, including Policy GG1, the proposal would undermine the environmental role of sustainable development by eroding openness and contributing to the coalescence of settlements. Furthermore, its location outside the defined settlement boundary, surrounded on three sides by countryside, demonstrates that it is not a sustainable or appropriate site for development.
As such, the proposal does not represent sustainable development and should not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Overall, it conflicts with the spatial strategy of the Neighbourhood Plan and would result in an unjustified expansion into open countryside, eroding the rural edge of Wistaston and setting a harmful precedent for further incremental encroachment into the surrounding agricultural landscape.
Comments on Transport Assessment
The Transport Assessment undertaken in support of the application contains material errors and draws conclusions which are not supported by the data provided.
The comments below reference sections in “086957 Land off Crewe Road, Wistaston Transport Assessment” undertaken by Cutrins, included in the formal planning application.
2.4.2
Factual error: There are no speed cameras in the vicinity of the site.
2.4.4
The traffic data was gathered more than three years ago and therefore likely understates current levels by 5%. It does not correctly reflect the actual volume at the present time which has greatly increased due to:
the "return to normal" which took some time post covid and had not occurred by Feb 2023
The figures quoted show that the peak average southbound speed was above the speed limit whilst the average northbound speed was only 0.3 mph below the speed limit.
The figures indicated that 15% of southbound traffic exceeded the speed limit by at least 20% whilst at least 15% of northbound traffic exceeded the posted speed limit by at least 15%.
Multiple vehicles were noted travelling at over 50 mph on each day during the survey period.
Based on the observed data, an average of 1,194 vehicles travelled past the site entrance in the peak morning hour. This represents 20 vehicles / minute or one every three seconds. Peak flows were 15% above this level.
The presence of curves in the road means that visibility for exiting traffic, especially to the left, is restricted. Additionally, there are no natural breaks in traffic flow caused by nearby traffic lights etc. Under these circumstances it is inevitable that vehicles exiting the site will have difficulty, especially in turning right. With, according to the report, 69 vehicles / hour seeking to exit the site it is highly likely that some drivers will feel pressured to turn onto the A 534 with less than adequate spacing, inevitably increasing the risk of collisions.
2.5.2
Factual error: A fatal road traffic accident occurred in September 2025 on the A534 approximately 200m from the proposed site entrance. 2.5.2 Incorrectly states there have been no fatal collisions on Crewe Road.
3.2.1
Who will be legally responsible for and fund the proposed junction re-alignment? And on what timescale?
The proposed junction re-alignment, even if it were to take place would not materially improve visibility.
5.2.2
This is a questionable assertion, ignoring the localised impact of at least 250 additional vehicles exiting / entering the site daily.
5.4.1
The developer’s own modelling suggests that 85% of peak-time departures from the site will occur in vehicles. (121 of 142 people).
6.8.1
The report’s summary focuses on maximum junction capacities whereas the real risk and major failing in the planning proposal centres on the newly created risks associated with significant additional vehicle activity at the site entrance.
7.2.7
This is a questionable conclusion. Even using the Developer’s own figures, traffic typically exceeds the speed limit on the A 534 at the site entrance.
7.4.1 / 2 / 3
With the Developer’s own traffic flow analysis suggesting that 85% of peak-time departures will be by motorised vehicles, the proposal is absolutely failing to “manage car use” and “reduce the need to travel”. It is therefore very clearly NOT in line with national and local transport policies and guidance.
7.5.1
The fact that the site is accessible by active and sustainable modes of travel completely overlooks the reality that, even using the Developer’s own analysis, only 15% of residents will actually use such means during peak hours (which is also the time at which the risk of road accidents will be at their peak).
8.1.2
8.1.2 states that a realignment of the existing Wistaston Road/Crewe Road junction will improve visibility to the left. This is incorrect as the sight line will not be improved by amending the orientation of the junction island, in fact this will make the turn into Wistaston Road from the Nantwich direction even more difficult.
Given the serial failure of developers to fulfil promised road improvement and safety enhancement works in the vicinity of residential developments, what assurances do local residents have that the “proposed” highway improvements works will be undertaken on a timely basis or, indeed, at all?
The proposal suggests that traffic can be reduced by use of cycles and walking. This suggestion is flawed as follows:
The cycle path on the Crewe Road is only a white line painted on the highway. In many places this is barely visible.
Vehicles often park on the cycle lane especially close to the proposed development, making it necessary for the cycles to swerve into the main carriageway or use the pavement.
From the entrance of the proposed development, it is a:
2.0 mile / 44 minute walk into Nantwich Town square (source Google maps)
2.7 mile / 57 minute walk into Crewe Town Square (source Google maps).
It is unlikely that the majority of residents of the proposed site will undertake to walk these distances often. Therefore, the likelihood is there will be between 200-300 cars entering and exiting the site which is already in a congested area of Crewe Road due to traffic entering/exiting: Wistaston Road, Church Road, Huntsbank Nursery, Huntsbank business - Co-op, Snap Fitness, Garage and other businesses.
Other Areas of Concern
Local schools are already oversubscribed.
Local doctors and dentists are oversubscribed.
Flooding issues. There are already issues with drainage on Crewe Road and the area
forms part of the Weaver catchment.
Lack of a full Environmental Study - many residents have stated that in the badly worded consultation, they thought they were objecting to the proposal rather than the needed for an EIA. The lack of an EIA endangers local wildlife.
The site may contain a 1967 Foot and Mouth burial site, development of which is regulated.