Nantwich town could face major flooding problems like those in the south if more developments take place near the River Weaver.
That was the warning from Nantwich Mayor Cllr John Lewis after outline planning permission for the 1,100-homes Kingsley Fields plan was approved.
Town councillors outlined their concerns over the proposed development, including the impact on traffic and loss of agricultural land.
But Cllr Lewis (pictured) told the town council meeting: “If we concrete over 20 acres of land close to the Weaver flood plain, water is going to run straight off.
“In 10 years time, we could see serious flooding in the town centre like we have seen in the south.
“There is going to be more and more rain, and building on land which is agricultural will make matters worse.”
Cllr Lewis also called for a serious debate on the benefits of a bypass around Nantwich to the south and the west.
Muller Homes plans for a 1,100-property “Nantwich South” village in Stapeley could also still go ahead if the developers win an appeal to be held on February 18.
“If this development takes place, there will be chaos on the railway crossings.
“We need a bypass around the town. At the moment large trucks and vehicles are going up small roads like Park Road, going past schools. At some stage there is going to be a serious accident.”
Cllr Arthur Moran (pictured) called on the council to issue an “enough is enough” message to Local Government Minister Eric Pickles prevent any more housing developments in Nantwich.
“We’ve done our bit,” he said. “We are up to 1,800 houses now with current applications and building going on.
“This is the best defence to fight the plans for the Stapeley end of the town.
“As far as I’m concerned, the north of the town has taken the brunt of the houses, and this will not be very popular with many in this part of the town.
“There will be 100 homes built every year, and they will be back with a detailed plan in three months, and they will be building soon after. Where is all the construction traffic going to go?
“We must see a strategic route from Waterlode to the Reaseheath bypass.”
Cllr Graham Fenton added: “The access road for building traffic would be far better coming via Acton on the main roads, and not down Barony Road, Beam Street and Waterlode.
“There is a lot less traffic via Acton, and fewer pedestrians.”
More detailed plans for the North West Nantwich Consortium plan at Kingsley Fields are due to be submitted to Cheshire East Council in the next few weeks.
Sorry Brangane, I see, you were referring to the Nantwich News article which is the topic of this thread.
The article refers to a warning made by Cllr John Lewis who is quoted as saying “In 10 years time, we could see serious flooding in the town centre like we have seen in the south.“
Am I missing something here? Is Cllr John Lewis an expert on flood risk??
He is also quoted as saying “There is going to be more and more rain, and building on land which is agricultural will make matters worse.”
How does Cllr Lewis know there is going to be ‘more and more rain’? Is he a meteorologist?
Boyo
Councillor Lewis can’t “know” there will be more rain any more than any politician can “know” anything about the future. We can’t work on the basis that we have to be 100% certain about anything before we take action. There is a general opinion that the UK will get more weather of the type recently experienced and, therefore, the balance of probability points towards more flooding rather than less. The Government has now planned to spend more on flood defences. In the case of Nantwich, maybe the defences will not be needed if houses are not built in vulnerable places. Builders are in the game to make a fast buck and have no interest in any problems they might cause. That is OK up to a point but there needs to be ways of preventing the sort of problems we are talking about. Forcing the builders to take on the financial responsibility for any problems they cause might make them think again. Money is a language they understand.
In the case of the planning application on Kingsley Fields, the Environment Agency did not object. In these circumstances, there is very little anyone can do in terms of the potential flood risk implications of the proposed development.
It is particularly ironic that the recent- and ongoing- flooding coincided with the announcement that 1,600 jobs will be lost at the Environment Agency by October this year. Read about it here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/government-warned-to-cancel-flood-specialists-job-cuts-as-storms-continue-to-batter-uk-9037922.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/12/david-cameron-environment-agency-job-losses-ea
I share Brangane’s concerns, however, I doubt that the local authority i.e. the council seems to be planning to encourage flooding in Nantwich. It’s not quite as straightforward as that.
Local planning authorities (in this case Cheshire East Council) seek the views of statutory consultees on planning applications.
The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee. They provide a consultation response to local authorities on matters relating to surface water, groundwater and flood risk.
Unless the Environment Agency objects to the development proposed in a planning application, the council is almost guaranteed to consider that what is being proposed is acceptable in relation to surface water management, protection of groundwater and flood risk.
If the applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment concludes that the impact of the proposed development is acceptable and the Environment Agency agrees with that conclusion, there is very little that members of the public can do.
Unfortunately, it is a paper exercise. In my view the problem arises when what is proposed on paper is not physically implemented on site during the build.
It’s easy to see how things can go wrong. Let’s say the drainage design proposes 1 metre diameter concrete pipes for the conveyance of surface water from development site to the point of ultimate discharge i.e. a stream or river. Unless the design specifications are strictly adhered to throughout the build, problems can arise e.g. laying a 0.5 metre diameter pipe when it should have been a 1 metre diameter pipe…
You have posted some very interesting info, thanks. The original report seemed to say that flooding in the centre of Nantwich is highly likely from developments built on the R Weaver flood plains. According to you, somebody has decided that this is “acceptable” – somebody sitting in a cosy office in London, maybe. How acceptable is it to the people who live in the centre of Nantwich and who run businesses there? Perhaps some of them who read these posts could tell us. It seems to be a fact of life that so long as somebody is making a pile of money from building new houses, nothing else is of concern. By the time the floods come, the developers will be long gone, along with their piles of money. I just do not understand why anyone would want to, or be allowed to, build on a flood plain given what we now know about the likely future impact. The message seems to be in the words “flood plain”. Are we all crazy, or what?
This whole development is an absolute joke. You would expect the current state of the nation, linked to widespread flooding, would call for common sense. But not in Nantwich, we decide to give away valuable agricultural land and adjacent flood lands to housing.
Councilors for Nantwich North should except the blame for this decision rather than looking elsewhere. Nantwich South has managed to campaign against developments, whilst nothing has happened in the north.
Comments of a campaign against this development are far too little and much too late, the decision is made and environmental impact will unfold in time.
Get the sandbags ready!
Drowning Dabber’s suggestion that Nantwich North councillors should be blamed for this is absurd.
The planning application was recommended for approval by a planning officer and subsequently approved by the council’s Strategic Planning Board in line with the planning officer’s recommendation.
No councillor’s in Nantwich North sit on the Strategic Planning Board so they cannot be blamed for the outcome.
End of.
Drowning Dabber says ‘This whole development is an absolute joke’.
Why? The Environment Agency didn’t object to it, so presumably the Flood Risk Assessment that was submitted with the application was sound.
Gary asks ‘This whole development is an absolute joke’.
Why?
Why…
Because Kingsley 2 represents valuable agricultural land which will be lost to Nantwich forever
The Weaver is flooding adjacent to the development right now, do you think it will be lesser when concrete and tarmac replace vegetation?
No realistic job creation for the new 1,100 households, leading a mass exodus for the daily commute, with a further bottle neck around Nantwich
Insufficient road network to the M6 from North Nantwich, which is where the majority of the new householders will be heading for work.
Nantwich amenities are at breaking point, have you tried to get an appointment at Church View medical Centre? Over subscribed Swimming lessons, oversized classrooms across the primary schools.
An agricultural colleague promoting capitalist success and urban development over environmental sustainability
Gary I suggest you pop into Nantwich and visit Costa, Aroma, Nero and any of the other coffee shops which Nantwich is now famous for.. have a big sniff and wake up!
I think Drowning Dabber knows a bit more than he’s letting on…
I would guess he knows that more than 20,000 houses need to be built in Cheshire East between 2010 and 2030. That number of houses cannot be accommodated on brownfield sites alone. Greenfield sites need to be released for housing development- fact.
You say valuable agricultural land will be lost to Nantwich forever. You mean like Queens Drive, where permission was granted for housing development on predominantly grade 2 and sub-grade 3a best and most versatile agricultural land?
If you feel so badly about these losses, why didn’t you object to both planning applications? Maybe you did?
This is a pretty amazing report. The local authorities seem to be planning to encourage flooding in Nantwich. Those areas which are currently affected by severe floods are in deep trouble and building on flood plains is a known recipe for disaster. House builders obviously don’t care what damage they might do the environment – they just want the money. Is there nobody in local government (or national government) who cares enough about this to put a stop to it before it becomes a disaster?