PRESTBURY PLANNING COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR A MEMORIAL PARK (10/3333M)

10/3333M Land off, Bridge Green (Paul Wakefield 13/10/10)
Development of land at Bridge Green to create a memorial park and garden of remembrance including the construction of a chapel of rest; garden of remembrance; footpath and access track; burial plots and new entrance gates.
PPC comment:
Prestbury Planning Committee strongly objects to this application on the grounds of traffic issues, flooding and ecological diversity. The meeting to consider this application was attended by an unprecedented amount of objectors

Municipal cemeteries are covered by the Local Authorities’ Cemeteries Order, 1977, Church of England churchyards are covered by various ecclesiastical measures and common law but our research of the Ministry of Justice website and the Dept. of Constitutional Affairs website appears to show that privately owned cemeteries and natural burial grounds have few regulations with which they are obliged to comply.

The land in this instance is Green Belt but cemeteries and indeed car parks are permissible on Green Belt according to PPG2. Nuclear waste facilities are not necessarily, they are a special case. One objector informed us he was intending to submit an application for such, we suspect not entirely seriously. Another letter of objection quoted PPG 17 on open spaces and spoke of the area no longer being appropriate space for local sports and recreation but this land is not designated for sport and formal recreation. Nor is it an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as another objector claimed. In fact, there is nowhere in Cheshire West or East that has that designation. Nor is it a Site of Special Scientific Interest or a Site of Biological Importance, but we could apply for the latter designation by writing to the relevant unit at Cheshire East and Cheshire Wildlife Trust.

The area is currently designated as an Area of Special County Value, which is a local designation and worth mentioning although both Cheshire West and Cheshire East seemed determined to drop this designation once they adopt their new Local Development Frameworks. Also, the access of the main road is within the Conservation Area although that in itself is probably not relevant but the impact on the Conservation Area is. As is the very poor quality of the actual access to the site. How numbers of long funeral vehicles could be expected to regularly negotiate Bridge Green – and in a safe and orderly manner – defies belief.

What we have here is a privately owned piece of land with poor access and public right of way running through it which has to be preserved. The right of way would not be stopped up as some objectors seem to assure. People cannot be prevented from continuing to walk, with or without dogs, stop and chat to other people, jog or bird watch, so long as they adhere to the public right of way. The proposal we have before us alters what they would see and experience when they are using this public right of way.

Any objections have to be made using planning arguments and in planning terms, we cannot see that it is relevant whether there is other burial places close by or not or whether there is a local demand sufficient to make the enterprise viable. This is a commercial venture of a rather unusual type but, in effect, that means that it is on the proposer’s head as to whether it is viable or not.

The principal planning-based & highway objections appear to be:
• The impact it would have on the openness of a river corridor
• The impact it would have on the Green Belt even though it is a permitted development
• The very poor access from Bridge Green
• The neighbourliness of the proposal
• The potential traffic problems that regular funeral processions would be likely to cause, aligned to the safety issues posed by a school crossing point being at the access junction
• Inadequate parking on site and adjacent to the site. What is offered is certainly not sufficient to accommodate two modest size funerals running back to back or one big one
• The fact that the land has a high water table and is on a flood plain and the situation would be exacerbated by the laying of hard surfaces. The proposer points out that the burial plots would be a certain distance from the river but it is not the distance from the normal height of the river that is important but the distance from the flood zone and the risk of pollution
• The fact that the land is rich in protected wildlife

We would suggest that this proposal is contrary to the following policies in the Macclesfield Local Plan:
NE1 on Areas of Special County Value
NE2 on Protection of Local Landscapes
NE3 on Landscape Conservation
NE9 on Protection of River Corridors
NE10 on Conservation of the River Bollin
NE18 on Accessibility to Nature Conservation
BE3 on Conservation Areas
BE11 on Prestbury Conservation Area
GC3 on Visual Amenities of the Green Belt
RT7 on Cycleways, Bridleways and Footpaths
RT8 Access to the Countryside
T3 which covers Conditions for Pedestrians & Safe Routes to School

Also, the development should not be contemplated without proof from the proposer that all the Environment Agency’s concerns have been met.

We strongly urge for this application be refused or at the very least a decision be delayed to meet Environment Agency’s concerns.