30.6 C
Congleton
Thursday, June 25, 2026
0,00 GBP

No products in the cart.

Home Our Areas Congleton Park link project could prove to be a bridge too far

Park link project could prove to be a bridge too far

0
3

Another effort will be made to kickstart plans for a footbridge connecting Congleton Park to a housing development.

The long-running saga began more than 13 years ago, when Morris Homes built the development, Astbury Place, on land on the opposite side of the River Dane to the park.

A section 106 agreement, spending imposed on housebuilders to pay for local infrastructure improvements, included a condition that a footbridge would be built for easier access to the park for Astbury Place residents.

But apart from groundworks in the park some five years ago, progress has stalled.

The subject has regularly appeared as an item on the agenda of Congleton Town Council’s Planning Committee, but there has been little to report.

At the last meeting, councillors agreed that the town hall should have another attempt at finding out if the footbridge will ever be built and if not, what the section 106 funding earmarked for its construction will be spent on instead.

North East Ward town councillor Rob Moreton, who also sits on Cheshire East Council, is to arrange a meeting with the authority’s head of planning David Malcolm to establish the current situation and whether the bridge plan has collapsed, and the reasons why.

An attempt will also be made to establish the timescale of any use of the s106 funding and whether Cheshire East will consult the town council on any proposed use of the funds.

Coun Moreton told the “Chronicle” that he was waiting to hear from Cheshire East, and criticised the lack of progress over so many years.

“I think it’s absolutely disgraceful how long this is taking. At the end of the day, the developer needs to be held accountable, and Cheshire East needs to sort out all the section 106 funding relating to all developments.

“The authority seems to lack any urgency to get the money off the developer.”

He conceded that while some Astbury Place residents wanted the bridge to be built to give them access to the park, others did not, as it could create a cut-through for anyone intent on antisocial behaviour.

But Coun Moreton added: “If the developer put funding aside for a footbridge, it should be made to deliver the project.”

Cheshire East Council and Morris Homes were asked to comment.

In the past, Morris Homes had been asked questions about the impact on the park from the footbridge’s construction, including piling, construction vehicles and river embankment work.

It emerged around three years ago that a briefing note from Mr Malcolm to the town council said: “It is evident that when the footbridge was proposed on the original planning application (and included in the legal agreement), no significant details of the bridge and its construction were considered, other than what it might look like.”

In respect of access, he said the construction vehicles required to transport materials and construct the bridge could only use the Congleton Park side, adding that investigations of a “lighter bridge solution” were not possible due to the span required.

Mr Malcolm also said construction access via the park would lead to a “significant closure” of the park and its rugby pitch for around 35 weeks and that, due to the remediation work needed, the pitch would be out of action for up to two seasons.

Erosion and stability of the Dane’s banks could pose a public hazard and work around trees could affect their stability.

The “Chronicle” had previously reported how some residents bought properties at Astbury Place believing that a footbridge nearby would give them easy access to the park instead of having to walk down the busy Buxton Road.

At a town council meeting in 2023 it was resolved that a meeting would be arranged with Mr Malcolm for councillors to “understand the detail, status and value” of the s106 agreement and gain a “clear understanding” of any engineering issues.

The meeting also resolved to “agree deliverable highway options to improve access to the park should the bridge not be deemed to be viable” and for “material to be prepared for a public consultation on the bridge, if viable, or other options if not”.

A Morris Homes spokesperson said at the time: “We have not been contacted by Congleton Town Council regarding any public consultation it intends to carry out and we have provided all the information necessary to Cheshire East Council to show how the bridge could be constructed and how it would affect the town park and its usage.”