In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35 and Appendix 7 to the rules, a total period of 15 minutes is allocated for members of the public to speak at Council meetings.
Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes, but the Chairman will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned, where there are a number of speakers.
Members of the public wishing to ask a question at the meeting should provide at least three clear working days’ notice in writing and should include the question with that notice. This will enable an informed answer to be given. It is not a requirement to give notice of the intention to make use of public speaking provision. However, as a matter of courtesy, a period of 24 hours notice is encouraged.
Minutes:
Mrs E Bostock, Mr P McHugh, Mr J Tittensor, Mr J Latham, Mrs G McIntyre, Mrs L Hassall, Mr Jones and Mr Williams spoke in opposition to a proposed housing development on a Greenfield site off Gresty Lane, Shavington on the grounds that the development would blur the distinction between Shavington and Crewe, threatening the separate identities of both communities, that the local highways infrastructure could not support the development, that it would lead to increased traffic congestion and that the increased population would place additional pressures on the local doctors’ surgery. It was also claimed that existing Section 106 Agreements protected wildlife in the area and provided that a spine road should be constructed before any further development could take place.
Mrs Charlotte Peters Rock, representing Knutsford Area for Knutsford Action, referred to the deep concern of the people of Knutsford that vulnerable, disabled adults, and those suffering from dementia, were being removed from the Knutsford area. She went on to say that claims that the Stanley Centre was ‘well past its sell-by date’ and that ‘the top two floors were empty and decaying rapidly’ were untrue, that a suggestion that the number of people using the Centre had fallen over the last year was misleading, and that this brought Cheshire East Council into disrepute.
Mr John Jones had given notice of a question regarding a proposed travellers site in Coppenhall, Crewe. Mr Jones questioned the suitability of the site, claiming that the ‘positive’ criteria used were misleading and that the differences between the site and other potential sites had been exaggerated. He then asked which planning committee would be considering the planning application, and when, and sought details of the public consultation that would take place. Finally, in the event that planning permission were granted, he asked when construction would begin, when the first residents would be expected to move in, what procedure if any would be used for selecting residents and what sanctions would be taken against those who behaved ‘in a manner inappropriate in a respectable residential neighbourhood’.
Councillor R Bailey, as the relevant Portfolio Holder, replied as follows:
“The Council has considered a range of sites within the Middlewich, Sandbach, Crewe and Nantwich Areas for the provision of a residential gypsy site. The area of search corresponded both with the area in which gypsies and travellers traditionally reside and the localities which have seen unauthorised residential sites granted via planning appeals.
The sites were assessed against physical, ecological and sustainability criteria.
The land at Parkers Road is considered to have a number of advantages:
§ It is close to the urban area – but not adjoining it;
§ Schools, shops and other facilities are within safe and easy walking distance (there is a footpath on Parkers Road itself);
§ The site is flat and relatively free from constraints;
§ Good road access;
§ It is an area which Gypsies and Travellers are known to use; and
§ Preliminary work (including a newt survey) has already been carried out.
Alternative sites were not considered to have the same advantages
The application will be determined by the Council’s Strategic Planning Board or a body determined by the Board, and the meeting would hopefully be held in Crewe. It is anticipated that the application will be submitted during November and determined in January or February. The planning application process will allow for full public consultation in the normal way.
It is too early to say when or if construction will start, as any decision must await the outcome of the planning process. Equally it would be premature to consider the precise arrangements made with future tenants. However, one of the advantages of a Council operated site as opposed to a private one is that we can ensure it is properly managed and that all necessary steps are taken to ensure the site is properly maintained and that occupiers abide by the regulations governing the site.
Subject to the outcome of the planning application, the Council would seek funding from the Government to develop the site.
Once it is known that there is a dedicated gypsy and traveller site in Cheshire East, this will make it less likely that gypsies and travellers will settle on other land within the Borough.”