Bloor appeals Sandbach refusal
Cheshire East Council will have to defend its decision to reject plans for 325 homes on 47 acres off The Hill, which was made contrary to officer advice.
In November, councillors voted seven to one in favour of a motion to refuse Bloor Homes’ Sandbach scheme after a near four-hour debate. Bloor has now appealed to the Planning Inspectorate to overturn the refusal.
No date has been set for the hearing.
Cheshire East councillors said the housebuilder had failed to provide evidence that the scheme’s impact on the grade two-listed Hill House, Oakley House, and the Leonard Cheshire Home had been mitigated.
It was the third time in recent months Cheshire East Council had ignored the advice of its officer team to reject a housing application.
In September, Bloor was on the wrong end of a decision in Macclesfield where it wanted to build 200 homes. The developer has since appealed the rejection.
In October, Wain Estates had proposals for 160 homes in Sandbach refused against officer advice. This has also been appealed.
Going into the appeals, Cheshire East is on a somewhat unstable footing as it can only prove a 3.8-year housing land supply against a statutory target of five years. This means that the tilted balance in favour of the developments will apply.
Bloor’s Sandbach scheme generated more than 1,000 objections from locals and a petition opposing the plans has garnered more than 2,000 signatures.
Of the 325 homes Bloor plans, 98 would be affordable. Around 20 acres of green space would be provided, including a linear park lining the south of the site, according to the plans.
To learn more, search for reference number 25/0211/OUT on Cheshire East Council’s planning portal.
Pegasus is advising Bloor on planning. Those also providing expertise on the project include Tyler Grange Group, Curtins, JPM Acoustics, Briary, Coopers, Wardell Armstrong, Lexington, KKP, ADAS, and Betts.
I hope Bloor Homes are seeking costs against the Council through this Appeal process. Typical of the politicians on the Planning Committee to overturn sound professional advice (again).
By Anonymous
Cheshire East never Iearn – disgusting. This wiII be another Iost appeaI at the Tax Payer’s expense and how they expect to retain professionaI PIanning Officers – or for those Officers to remain motivated – when their recommendations are constantIy ignored by those bowing to the Nimby brigade is beyond me!!
By David SIeath
Planning Committees refusing applications contrary to officer recommendations where the decision is overturned at appeal with a costs award, should be compelled to write to every household in their authority every time this happens to tell their voters the exact cost of their stupidity and remind them it is residents who pay the price.
By YIMBY
fingers crossed the councils decision gets upheld. Housebuilders are hopefully going to get a rude awakening that they can’t just apply and build wherever they want and ignore peoples (councils and local residents) views.
By Anonymous
Just Surcharge the seven councillors who voted to overturn the professional advice / recommendation of the planning officers and to save the tax payers the expense of footing the bill, hopefully they’ll think twice in the future about their money wasting actions and start taking their elected duties seriously.
By Russell P
Anonymous at 3.07. Meanwhile on planet earth the Council will learn another very harsh lesson as they will lose this at Appeal.
By Anonymous
Thank you for your comments, Anonymous at 3.07pm. Here is your reminder that Planning may be democratically accountable, but it is not a referendum. It is a quasi-judicial process based on national and local policies, guidance and case law.
Housebuilders can’t just build what they want… but local planning authorities cannot just reject what they don’t want, either. If only applications went through some kind of professional assessment prior to the planning committee, perhaps with a report and recommendations; then committees wouldn’t have to wing.
The only rude awakenings I can see are the ones repeatedly handed to committees in appeal decision reports. Sadly, too many committee members seem to fall back asleep and recall it the next morning only as a bad dream.
By Reality Check
@Anonymous at 3:07 pm, you should prepare yourself to be very disappointed by reality.
By Sten
I sincerely hope that council’s decision to refuse planning is upheld, Sandbach is a lovely town and already had its share of development ,
By Maureen Worsencroft
As someone very familiar with the area, this has seemingly actually been done with the town in mind. Sandbach has a low grade motorway junction that’s always struggled with traffic.
The hill is an area that directly impacts and is impacted to and from – it often gets completely gridlocked.
It’s a small town with infrastructure that’s impossible to upgrade and already hugely oversubscribed. Another 300+ houses there would be absolute chaos.
It’s a little market town and really wouldn’t sustain every development being thrown at it.
By Anonymous
I wonder which generation the copy and paste NIMBYs commenting on this article come from…
By Anonymous