Full text:
Objection to Potential Removal from the Green Belt of Disley Sites Bentside A and Bentside B
Bentside A and Bentside B
My objection is to the Disley sites Bentside A and Bentside B. These sites make a “Major Contribution” to green belt purposes and as such should not be released from the green belt for development.
The current proposal looks to me to be identical to that proposed in the SADPD Disley Settlement Report, August 2018.
The Bentside A and Bentside B sites have gone by numerous names over the years. According to your map (1) these sites are currently known as:
• CFS 26 346
• CFS 26 319 (also known as HE78)
• CFS 26 338
• HE79, HE103
(1) https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/site-submissions/housing-and-employment-sites
(There is a table on your website titled “Submissions to the call for sites 2024”. I notice that not all of the sites outlined on the map are represented on this table - HE78 and HE103 are the only sites listed therein.)
Bentside A and Bentside B were previously known as CFS112 and CFS113 and are contained within GBAU land parcels DS22, DS21 and DS20.
Disley Residents’ Relationship with the Surrounding Countryside
The village of Disley has excellent countryside connections of which the inhabitants are extremely fond. The local footpath network is a vast web of inter-connected rights of way utilised by many, many local people daily: walkers, runners, dog walkers, cyclists, horse riders and the Disley Runners Club twice each week, every week throughout the year. That the inhabitants of Disley are extremely fond of the surrounding countryside is emphasised by the fact that we have a Footpath Society whose volunteers maintain these footpaths and bridleways to a high standard. Indeed, in the poorly draining, muddy hillsides surrounding the settlement it is often clear where Cheshire East ends and Derbyshire or Stockport begins just from the standard of footpath maintenance. Another example of the high regard that the inhabitants of Disley have for their local countryside is illustrated by the fact that the Disley Runners have donated excess monies from their subs to the Disley Footpath Society at end of year in order to help fund and maintain the footpath network that they so regularly use. We love the fields, hills and woods round-about and a housing development at Bentside A and/or Bentside B would wreck it to a very significant extent.
Proximity to “Countryside”
One of the great things about Disley is that you can escape the built-up area very quickly. In a matter of minutes you can be walking in sheep fields where all you can see are other fields, hills, woods and farmhouses; the nearby settlement being predominantly hidden. Once you’re on Green Lane to the south or Long Lane to the south east you get a very real sense of being “in the countryside” and it doesn’t take long to get onto these lanes, especially for those living on the southern side of the A6. If the Bentside sites are developed that would irrevocably change. Green Lane and Long Lane would switch from “countryside” to “housing estate” and it would take a around 20 minutes or more to escape the built-up zone when walking out from the centre of the village.
A 5 minute walk from the station or from the centre of the village puts you onto Green Lane and once you’ve cleared only the 4th house the view opens up and you’re in the countryside. That would change if the Bentside sites are developed - the space would close in again from the left and the built-up zone would re-appear in a way that would be jarring. For the next 10-12 minutes the sense would no longer be one of walking through countryside but of walking past a housing estate.
This detrimental effect would be the same if accessing Green Lane from Bentside Road via footpaths 27 & 29 or from Elizabeth Avenue via footpath 30. These points of access are extremely popular amongst those living on the southern side of the A6 and this rapid access to what can be legitimately described as countryside is invaluable.
Similarly, those living towards the eastern side of the Chantry Road estate or towards the top of Buxton Old Road would access this area via Long Lane (footpath 31). A mere 40m along this path from Buxton Old Road and the walker is in the countryside. This effect would be spoiled as for the next 5-8 minutes the walker would now be passing a housing estate.
This rapid access to the countryside is priceless to so many inhabitants in the village. I don’t have the figures but i’d say that Green Lane and Long Lane must be used by hundreds of people on a daily basis. Often these walks are necessarily short - walking the dog, a little 4k run after work or perhaps advancing years have rendered them less mobile than they may have once been and a short loop around Green Lane and Long Lane is the best they can manage. A Bentside development would ruin these shorter walks.
Currently, it is true that some of the houses along Goyt Road can be seen from Green Lane and this is a shame because their presence is jarring. They seem out of place somehow and it feels like an encroachment of the built-up area into the countryside. However, this encroachment is minimal and that is the way it should remain.
Large Swathe Blot on the Landscape in the Foreground
Disley is surrounded by hills and thus a development at Bentside would be highly visible from many, many places round-about. Furthermore, the Bentside sites slope in 2, arguably 3, directions thus presenting an entire “face” of the development to an observer in the surrounding countryside. What I mean by this is that an observer looking from the side at a housing development constructed on level land would see a row of houses, the rest of the development behind being obscured by this front row. This would not be the case here because of (a) the slope of the sites and (b) the elevation of the surrounding hills. Large amounts of these developments would, therefore, be highly visible from large parts of the surrounding countryside. [I’m going to refer to this as a “large swathe blot on the landscape”]. In addition, this would not be a distantly visible development from a single location, rather it would be prominently visible in the FOREGROUND from many areas.
From the centre of Disley it takes approximately half an hour to walk to the lower slopes of Black Hill, to the land around Cock Knoll (adjacent High Peak School) and to Lyme Park East Gate. This development would be a large swathe foreground blot on the landscape in and around each of these areas. So, even after walking for 30 minutes you’re still sharply reminded of the presence of a built-up area. Further, these aren’t the only areas in the surrounding countryside from which this potential development would be highly visible, these are just the ones which are about 30 minutes away. Include also: the edge of Park Moor, Lantern Wood and continuously from Lyme Park East Gate all the way round to the Cage and beyond. A very obvious, very visible large swathe foreground blot on the landscape from all of these places. The many, many thousands of visitors who walk up to the Cage each year will be presented with that view in the foreground. Although the worst of it would likely be the view from the top of nearby Black Hill which many people walk up each day. The view would be ruined: very close and very prominent, the development couldn’t be ignored and it certainly couldn’t be shielded.
Gritstone Trail
Developing Bentside A & B would also ruin the end of the Gritstone Trail. Be they walkers or even the runners participating in the Gritstone Grind each year, the end of the trail would now be a massive housing estate. A walker finishing the Gritstone Trail would see Lyme Park and the Cage to the left and to the right would be a large housing estate - right there, up close.
Traffic on Buxton Old Road
Buxton Old Road is already coping with 4,400 vehicles per day [A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road Year 5 Report March 2025 SMBC]. This is far more vehicles than it was ever designed to carry and this would be exacerbated by any development at Bentside.
Flood Mitigation for CFS29 Cloughside Farm
Unlike Bentside A and Bentside B which both provide Major Contributions to green belt purposes, CFS29 Cloughside farm provides the lesser “Significant Contribution”. However, I notice that CFS29 has been dropped from a requirement for safeguarding. It appears to me that CFS29 was dropped because (a) the safeguarded land area requirement has been met by FDR1941 and (b) a possibility that parts of CFS29 may have flooded in the past. It is my opinion that Cheshire East should evaluate possible flood mitigation measures at CFS29 rather than rejecting the land from safeguarding on the basis of, what is to a large part, anecdotal evidence. Just because a site may have flooded in the past does not mean that flood mitigation measures will be inadequate. The site does not sit within the flood plain of the River Goyt, on the contrary it sits on a hill side which must surely drain towards the river below it. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a carefully located drainage culvert might rectify any current or future flooding issues on this and/or adjacent sites. Cheshire East should explore flood mitigation at site CFS29 rather than tearing up sites which make a Major Contribution to the Green Belt.
Summary
In summary, I believe it would be tantamount to countryside vandalism if the Bentside sites were ever developed.
• A Bentside development would turn both Green Lane and Long Lane from “countryside” to “housing estate”
• A Bentside development would be strikingly visible in the foreground from large parts of the surrounding countryside including Lyme Park
• A Bentside development would ruin the end of the Gritstone Trail
• A Bentside development would increase traffic volumes on a road which is already carrying far more vehicles than it was designed for
• Flood mitigation measures at site CFS29 Cloughside Farm (Significant Contribution to green belt purposes) should be investigated before developing Bentside A and B (both Major Contributions to green belt purposes)
