Row over Henbury homes deepens after flood report

Controversy over three proposed schemes off Chelford Road near Macclesfield has intensified following publication of a flood risk report.

Developers Bellway, Jones and Redrow plan to build almost 400 homes across the three sites, which already have outline consent. The applications, however, have met with continued opposition from local residents and the parish council over the past year.

Now, a flood risk report commissioned by an objecting party, Henbury Parish Council, has threatened to stall the plans. The report by consultancy Weetwood highlights “serious shortcomings in the flood risk and drainage assessments provided for this and the neighbouring developments, all of which lie within a Critical Drainage Area known for flooding in parts,” according to the parish council, which describes the report as “damning”.

The report refers directly to Bellway’s 157-home scheme and a 30-home development from Jones to the North of Chelford Road.

A third site, a 232-home development to the south of Chelford Road by a joint venture between Redrow and Jones, is also mentioned in the report and is up for consideration by Cheshire East Council’s planning committee on 26 February.

In December, Redrow said that its one-, two-, three-, four- and five-bedroom scheme would include 30% affordable housing and generate community contributions of over £1m for primary and secondary education, highways improvements, outdoor and indoor sport contributions and local healthcare provision.

The parish council has also raised concerns that, if the developments go ahead, there will be a shortage of 392 high school places in the local area.

The sites are allocated for housing under the local plan, alongside a further vacant site to the north of Chelford Road which is not included in the application.

A previous objection from environmental lobby group Save Macclesfield Greenbelt, said: “Overall, this is a developers’ plan for profit at the expense of Macclesfield residents.  It will not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the people who live here.

“It is time to rethink and take a more positive approach to this significant development, so that it is of benefit to the residents of Macclesfield.”

Andy Martin, land director at Bellway Homes, said: “We are aware that a hydrology report has been submitted to Cheshire East Council by a local group objecting to our planning applications. Our consultants are scrutinising the validity of any objections raised.

“The site has an Outline Planning Permission, with an approved Flood Risk Assessment which confirms that by utilising the design principles detailed within the report, there will be no residual flood related risks remaining after the development has been completed.

“We are currently addressing consultee comments. We have been working towards the February planning committee meeting.”

Your Comments

Read our comments policy

Developers trying to get away with building on flooded land again, residents at nearby Watkin Jones part completed site are already suffering from damp! Another inappropriate site rushed in the Local Plan by CEC Tory Councillors and Sean Hannaby.

By Green Wellies

Perhaps it is just time for the council to admit defeat here with these applications off Chelford Road adjacent to Broken Cross AQMA. They were rushed in, there is no proper drainage, they will contribute to increased congestion and pollution, there are no school place etc etc etc. It seems everyone apart from the developer and some of the council can see how ludicrous and damaging they will be for the residents and the environment. Isn’t it about time the council took a sensible pill and looked at what they could do to halt development in this most sensitive of areas – I mean, chopping the trees down the kids planted… come on, I’m sure they can do better than that. You councillors should get together with the MP and the council leader (minus the lawyers) and thrash this out. Can’t means won’t !!!!

By Save Macclesfield Greenbelt

There are so many reasons to oppose the development: the traffic on Chelford road is already very bad (and a nightmare during rush hour), pollution, strain on GP surgeries and schools, …. The promise of 1 million pounds
make everything go away…

By Lynda

Too many houses being built now and no extra infrastructure put in to cope with extra people!
The local hospital cant cope now, nor can the schools!
The roads are choc a block at all times of the day!
More thought needs to be put in instead of just thinking about money!

By G Whalley

Time to move on from this unwanted plan. It is not fitting when the facilities or traffic cant cope. Other sites, used sites, more appropriate

By Mjoy

NIMBY-ism at it’s finest

By Justgetonwithit

Across the sites north of Chelford Rd we’re likely to be talking about 20,000 cubic meters of peat, at least. As yet, no mention of what will happen to it, and there has been no attempt at calculating the volume by the developers – at least not that they’ve published……


There is of course NIMBY-ism at play, but when you actually study what is proposed and the potential impact you do realise that there are very deep flaws in these sites. How many thousand cubic meters of peat removal from a site that would qualify as a local widlife site does it take to make a development a problem?

By WhirlingDervish

These proposed developments are suffering from past promises by past councillors, all fuelled by money and greed.
None of the proposed houses are now needed to fulfil housing quotas.
I have no problem with the right houses being built in the right place that fulfil the need for what is required by the residents, ie bungalows, starter homes for people to buy, 30% affordable housing.
These developments tick none of these boxes.
Then of course there is the small problem of congestion, AQMA, flooding, peat, removing trees, design issues, insufficient infrastructure in place, no secondary school places, loss of green fields, ancient woodland………………….
Yes, CEC is now in a bit of a pickle, outline permission given under a previous regime, current council left with inadequate plans, insufficient information, developers desperate to start building but with no justification, just fudged or incomplete plans on the table
Never have developers plans come under so much public scrutiny and found to be so lacking .

Apart from the

By Sue


By Anonymous

Are the developers just going to turn up at SPB and say council officers have accepted all our reports for discharge of conditions and then it gets passed?

By Whirley 1

Related Articles

Sign up to receive the Place Daily Briefing

Join more than 13,000 property professionals and receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox


Join more than 13,000 property professionals and sign up to receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox.

By subscribing, you are agreeing to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

"*" indicates required fields

Your Job Field*
Other regional Publications - select below