Cheshire East rejects 75-home Nightingale pitch
Twice deferred and with an appeal already lodged, the land promoter’s hopes to establish an outline consent for land off Broad Lane, Nantwich met with further hostility in the committee chamber.
Nightingale Land has already sought to secure its verdict through the Planning Inspectorate, having lost patience following two deferrals in March.
With the matter already in the appeal process, officers had put the item back on the docket for this week’s strategic planning board meeting, seeking to secure a “minded to approve” or “minded to refuse” verdict, in order to give them a basis for how the council might approach the appeal.
They now have that verdict. Six members voted in favour of refusal, and two against, following a lengthy session that saw speakers including local Labour councillor Cllr John Priest and Stapeley & District parish councillor Michael Aspaturian speaking in strident opposition to the application.
Throughout the process, dating back to the application’s first hearing in early March, officers had recommended approval for what is, in the context of a popular housing location at a time of restricted supply, a modestly-sized proposal.
The Broad Lane area not only has the Muller-led Maylands Park housing under development, but has around 700 further homes potentially in the works, from Seddon and Muller.
What members – both at those two March meetings, and this early June session, with a refreshed line-up of committee members – have wanted to do is to pass judgment on the cumulative impact of these schemes on the area’s highways.
The initial deferment in March came as a result of a request for further information on highways impact, with the second session witnessing something of an impasse, as officers explained that this particular applicant could not be compelled to provide a study factoring in the future plans of other parties.
It was reiterated at the June session that although officers are trying to get ahead of the situation and work with developers to make sure safety concerns, highway access and supporting walking and cycling are factored in as proposals come forward, they can for the time being only judge each case on its own merits.
Planning board members were not for swaying though, the cumulative impact of the various pipeline schemes seemingly the point that had achieved “cut-through” and stuck in the minds of councillors.
With Nightingale – the business set up by veteran land promoter David Gladman – having already triggered the appeal process via the written representation route, a verdict will be given at some point soon.
Having sought advice from a Kings Chambers KC, the firm believes the highways matter was not a justifiable reason for deferring a decision, appealing on grounds of non-determination.
The appeal, submitted on 13 May, also seeks a costs award on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour.
Having cleared its most significant item, the redevelopment of Leighton Hospital, inside an hour, yesterday’s strategic planning board session also saw Hallam Land’s bid to secure outline consent for 130 homes in Alsager approved, securing a 3-1 verdict with a majority abstaining.
Well done, pity West Lancs didn’t take the same stance at Prescott Road. Oh well no doubt the Planning Inspector with their bias would approve it anyway
By Anon
I think the refreshed ‘Planning Board’ require educating. As a CEC tax payer, at the time school bus services are being cut to save money, going against the advice of their own officers, consultees and a KC because they think they are above Planning Law and National Guidance is absolutely galling. I wish PNW would monitor committee members’ voting records and document how much their bias and incompetence is costing constituents
By The White Horse
@Anon – the Prescot Road site in West Lancs was literally an allocated safeguarded site for housing development, and has been since 2012. In this case, it seems the new committee members in Cheshire East are doomed to repeat the mistake of the outgoing lot and incur significant costs at taxpayers expense. Another example of where planning committees simply don’t work!
By Anonymous
Cheshire East needs to draw up a Borough-wise design code as per the LURA 2023.
By Rye
@ Anon, June 10, 2026 at 9:29 am
What bias do you mean? Only about 30% of appeals to the Planning Inspectorate are successful, so if you’re suggesting the inspector is biased towards developers, you’re dead wrong. Planning decisions are meant to be decided against planning policy and not made politically, and if West Lancs (or any council) refuse an application not on policy grounds, then they are just leaving themselves open to penalty costs on appeal.
By Sten
Cheshire East NEVER Iearn – another appeaI at the Taxpayers expense – utterIy disgracefuI.
By David SIeath
I’m glad hear that, well done 👍🏻✅ I’m super happy with it absolutely delicious.
By G J Kitchener
A Freedom of Information request of Cheshire East as to the total costs incurred (Council and Appellant, where awarded) in unsuccessfully defending Appeals for the last 5-10 years would make interesting reading.
By Cheshire Westerner
How can a scheme be approved when the majority of councillors abstain? What is the thought process here? Councillors are paid to represent the people and abstaining is a failure of that duty
By Anonymous
Why do so many of these new developments only have one access road?
By Tom Wilson
@sten the figure is 60% and the national planning review under the last government was led by a consultant whose firm provides advice to developers – the details are on the web. The whole process has a built in bias in favour of development despite the bleating.
By Anon
Funnily enough I wrote a comment which seems to have disappeared. Developers have no interest in what they leave behind. Traffic in south Nantwich is horrendous for several hours per day. 4 weeks for a practice nurse appointment, unpleasant to walk into town because of the traffic.
By Stuart