Your Comments

BAE Systems closure and its future

Comments on this vital topic following the Public Meeting held on 15 October 2009 and the discussions at the WCC AGM on 26 November 2009.

John Ridgway comments:

I attended the meeting on the 26th and addressed Mr Bryant regarding Planning Policy Guidance 17 for open space, sport and recreation and the PPG 17 study undertaken by the council at great expense according to Mr Bryant.

I mentioned that the detail of this study is flawed and that some of the data is made up, that it should be available for public scrutiny as it is part of the evidence base used by the council in the Core Strategy currently under consideration.

It was mentioned that without these pertinent details being available widely in the public domain in consideration of a proper response by the public, that the possibility of the public being mislead may occur and that although it might seem minor, it is the lack of transparency afforded that precludes a proper analysis.

Mr Bryant offered those present a chance to view the documents by appointment but given that these documents form the basis for adoption of commuted sums contributions from developers and have a financial impact to date of several million pounds of revenue to the council in the subsequent determination of planning applications, that the litany of errors and omissions should be available to all to inspect.

The errors are not immediately apparent but under examination of the word document report and the excel spreadsheets coupled with the mapping and unchecked surface areas dictated by the council to Strategic Leisure Limited who completed the report, shows clearly that the whole exercise is deeply flawed and is not in accordance with PPG 17.

Return to top of page.

Anon comments:

The worst crime in Woodford is the closure of BAe with hundreds of job losses for an experienced and skilled workforce. How can the Govt. justify this closure and then utilise American aircraft?

Julie O'Neill comments:

Unfortunately I cannot make it to the meeting, though I really would’ve liked to attend and learn more about the BAE development proposals. I accessed the consultation documents last week re BAE site development (after a lot of head scratching!) and made some points on the comments sections. I feel also that there are some other points that hopefully may be addressed at the AGM;

• The proposals are based on the fact that SEMMS will be progressing – do the council know something we don’t?! It seems very convenient to rely on this fact in order to dismiss any concerns regarding the surrounding traffic network. Is there now an official timetable available for beginning and completion of the SEMMS work that the council can provide?
• If SEMMS progression is imminent, why has a new house only just been built right at the end of the A555 at Bramhall?!! Great planning, eh?
• In the consultation document the council suggests that investment be put into the central Bramhall services to enhance them, rather than new services provided at Woodford (particularly critical if new homes are to be built). How does the council propose to manage this? How does extra money put into Bramhall Schools (for eg) benefit residents here specifically? Will they also look at changing other factors (eg schools catchment areas, doctor catchment areas) so that this will work better?

I hope that the meeting goes well, and I’m sure that there will be lots of lively discussion re BAE amongst other things. Hopefully the planning department will do some listening a well as talking.... Julie O’Neill

Return to top of page.