CWAC committee kicks can down road on Moulton resi
For much of a fractious two-hour debate, refusal looked likely for Keepmoat subsidiary MCI’s 115-home Cheshire plan, before members narrowly voted to defer a verdict.
Cheshire West & Chester Council officers had recommended approval for the project, on the edge of the settlement boundary of Moulton, a village near Northwich.
A significant factor in this was CWAC’s current inability to demonstrate a five-year housing supply. As yesterday’s meeting was told, CWAC currently delivers around 400-500 homes a year, and needs to up that to around 2,000 homes in light of expanded housing targets.
Until the council makes some inroads on that number, the titled balance in favour of development will apply in most cases.
The proposal
The site is countryside, adjoining the settlement boundary of Moulton. Access is available from two points off Niddries Lane.
Setting out how the project represents sustainable development, the report prepared for committee set out how there are bus stops nearby, with the site described as accessible for services, with a pre-school and primary school to the north-west and a playground and convenience retail close by.
MCI’s project had been revised and reconsulted on during the assessment period, with the outcome being, in officers’ view, an improved scheme with less infringement onto ecological features.
The professional tam includes planner Carter Jonas, e3p, Ironside Farrar, AES Sustainability Consultants, Eddisons and landscape architect TBA.
What the scheme would give Northwich is a wholly affordable chunk of housing. The 115 homes proposed are mostly two-storey houses, breaking down as 12 one-bedroom houses; 52 two-bedroom houses; 38 three-bedroom houses; and 13 four-bedroom houses.
The meeting
Officer recommendation notwithstanding, the proposals met with some hostility from the word go, with Cllr Dan Marr, who had called the application into committee owing to concerns over highways, impact on character of the village and compliance with the Moulton neighbourhood plan, receiving thunderous applause when he called the scheme “totally unsuitable” for the village.
Co-objector Moulton Parish Council’s representative spoke volubly, pointing out the neighbourhood plan’s status: “this application directly contradicts the policy that our community voted for”.
In all, around 200 representations were registered, around two-thirds of them objecting. The parish council said 90% of respondents to a survey it held oppose the scheme.
That was countered by a presentation in favour, pointing out that the council has 6,600+ households on the housing list, and that temporary accommodation cost CWAC £5,2m in financial year 2023-24, in an area where house prices are seven times local wages.
Several areas of contention were discussed at the meeting – the proximity of bus stops not meaning much, as ward councillor Cllr Gaynor Sinar pointed out, if services are reduced. The ability of the local school to accommodate more pupils was also questioned.
The verdict
MCI’s plans must now be heard another day. With Cllr Sinar and Cllr Lynn Gibbon the most vocally opposed, a lengthy back-and-forth ensued whereby refusal and deferral were alternately proposed, with Cllr Sinar stating the grounds on one bid for refusal as “density and the impact on neighbourhood and amenity”.
CWAC planning manager Nick Smith then explained that basing a decision on those grounds would not only mean almost inevitable defeat at inquiry, but the loss of costs as well, possibly running into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Although the councillors suggested that more information could and should be made available for a subsequent hearing, should the matter be deferred, it was pointed out that the applicant had met every obligation required, so a markedly different proposal could by no means be guaranteed.
With the meeting at something of an impasse, chair Cllr Gina Lewis called for a vote on deferring, which squeezed through by five votes to four.
Planning documents for the project can be seen on CWAC’s planning portal, reference 24/03682/FUL.
Isn’t it about time we got rid of committees and left these things to those actually qualified/sane?
By Anonymous
This is a good proposal considering the sites features and more importantly delivering 100% affordable housing in place of the usual detached open market housing that nobody can afford. Ridiculous that this has been deferred when the outcome is inevitable!
By Anonymous
This is exactly the type of application the Government is trying to encourage to stimulate much needed economic growth ..looks very well designed with lots of open space .. should be encouraged
By Mark R
Where on earth do they think their houses were built. Kingsmead was once open fields and Moulton was all open fields from early 1900s. Since then it has been predominantly farm land and greenbelt on which all the current houses etc have been built some are even on the edge/ frontage of this same piece of land.
This screams of the “I’m alright Jack and to heck with the rest of you” syndrome. These houses would provide desperately needed accommodation for younger people to get on the property ladder or anyone wishing to downsize and have a better quality of life. To deny others the opportunity to own a decent property is downright selfish and self indulgent
It could be your children it affects!
By Patricia W
“This is exactly the type of application the Government is trying to encourage to stimulate much needed economic growth” – house building does not stimulate economic growth, it is extractive – the German and Chinese companies that provide tools and materials extract money, the shareholders of the consultants and builders extract money, and the public utilities and infrastructure firms extract money. The land is finite, it’s rather like logging a forest – eventually you’ll run of out trees to feed the machine.
By John Smith
There’s no such thing as ‘sustainable’ development, eventually you will run out of green fields to concrete over, and then what ? Hive cities ?
By John Smith
Once again, Planning Committees demonstrating that they’re unfit for purpose. A scheme for 100% affordable housing in a sustainable location in need of housing. 6,000+ people on the housing waiting list. But instead, Cllrs ignore professional Officers advice and fail to grasp basic planning legislation and policy, to side with 200 NIMBY’s who’s sole focus is protecting their property values. Shambles.
By Anonymous