168-home plan deferred over flooding concerns
Councillor says we want to be ‘as solid on the flooding issue as we can be’
Belinda Ryan Local Democracy Reporter 06:00, 24 Jul 2026
One of the proposed accesses to 168-home application site at Wilmslow is off Bailey Road (Image: CEC planning meeting)
A 168-home application has been deferred so flooding experts can attend a future planning meeting to address concerns after councillors heard nearby residents had been forced to leave their water-logged homes. Cheshire East planning officers had recommended the strategic planning board approve the application from Jones Homes and Taylor Wimpey for safeguarded land at Dean Row Road.
But nearby resident Aidan Bibby told Wednesday's meeting, since phase one of the development had been built six different areas had been flooded. “My family’s lived with repeated flooding for two years. We’ve seen six-foot of flooding in our cellar,” he said. “We’ve been forced out of our home for six months, and we’ve moved 11 times with two small children, and our cellar is still flooded today.
“Your own authority is still investigating the drainage impacts of phase one. Until it has, how can this committee possibly be satisfied that this proposal complies with your own flood-risk policy? Right now, we don’t believe it can. So please finish the investigation, understand what’s happened, then make the decision, not before.”
Ward councillor Lata Anderson (Ind) said she has been sent pictures by residents of sewage floating in their gardens. She asked the committee: “How can you approve an application which, after 14 months, still has no flood water drainage design, which is a condition asked by many?”
Neighbouring ward councillor David Jefferay (Ind) said: “United Utilities, who I’ve rarely seen object, state that elements of the drainage design may not be acceptable and require further resolution. Members are being asked to approve this development today before significant flood and drainage concerns have been resolved and rely on planning conditions for further drainage details, investigation of drainage options, infiltration assessments, discharge rates, and mitigation measures for suitable surcharge.”
He asked the application be refused or deferred ‘until the outstanding flood-related matters have been fully resolved’. The applicants’ agent told councillors the issue related to phase one ‘wasn’t with the principle of the drainage strategy, it was that actually the drains were put in the wrong place…it was a contractor’s issue that’s now been resolved’.
Councillors were also told culverts had not been cleared by the site owner which may have led to flood issues. Planning officer Paul Wakefield said there were no objections from United Utilities or the local lead flood authority (LLFA).
Head of planning David Malcolm told councillors: “There’s clearly been an issue with phase one that’s exacerbated and maybe caused some of the more recent issues. There’s a solution that’s been implemented to fix that.” He added: “If you put development on any site, it shouldn’t make the situation worse than it is at the moment. What it also can’t do is fix existing problems. What we’ve said in this is that it has the potential to improve the situation.”
But councillors weren’t convinced. A proposal from Middlewich councillor Garnet Marshall (Ind) to approve the application was voted down. Cllr David Edwardes (Macclesfield, Ind) then suggested deferral because of the concerns about flooding. Cllr Russell Chadwick (Congleton, Con) agreed saying: “Flooding mitigation has not been fully resolved and met to our satisfaction, and we would like the developer to come back with more robust flood mitigation.”
He said the committee wanted to be ‘as solid on the flooding issue as we can be’. Committee chair Brian Puddicombe (Lab) said: “I think if we can have somebody from our LLFA come and talk to us and answer our questions in layperson’s terms.”
Ten councillors voted in favour of deferral, and one voted against.
