Mereside housing, Dewscope, p plannng

Plans by E*scape Urbanists included Green Belt land, but kept most of it as open space. Credit: via planning documents

Dewscope appeals 225-home Knutsford rejection

Cheshire East Council will have to fork out to defend its decision to refuse permission for the redevelopment of 40 acres east of Longridge, a scheme that the authority’s officers had said should be approved.

Developer Dewscope had its proposal for 225 homes in Knutsford rejected just before Christmas against officer recommendations. The developer has now lodged an appeal against that decision.

Cheshire East councillors unanimously refused Dewscope’s housing development due to it being located partially within the Green Belt. The council’s planning team had advised that the provision for 67 much-needed affordable homes made the loss of protected land worth it.

Councillors also noted concerns over the loss of public open space and the impact the scheme would have on the local wildlife. There were also worries about the scheme’s design.

As well as homes, Dewscope’s project also features a community building and dedicated public open space with active travel links. Most of the site is situated on land allocated for housing in the area’s local plan.

At the time of writing, no date has been set for the inquiry.

E*scape Urbanists had drawn up the plans for Dewscope, with Emery Planning leading the application process. The project team included SCP Transport Planning, Betts Hydro, PGLA Landscape Architects, Smith Grant Environmental Consultancy, Cheshire Woodlands, and Architectural History Practice.

You can learn more about the application by searching reference number 21/3100M on Cheshire East Council’s planning portal.

Your Comments

Read our comments policy

It wouId be fascinating to know how much Tax Payer’s money has been wasted by Cheshire East in the Iast five years on needIess PIanning AppeaIs arising from these Iudicrous decisions – particuIarIy ones that summariIy ignore Officer recommendations. HopefuIIy with the new Government’s approach to Pianning Authorities such as Cheshire East wiII not be abIe to get way with this nonsense for much Ionger!!

By David SIeath

They should reform the local planning committees, serve no useful purpose. if

IF professional officers assess against an adopted policy. They should just be there to convey local thoughts for consideration, not decision making.

By Anonymous

Not in my particular patch of the NW, but as a general observation with Labour’s supposed onslaught on outdated planning regulations and attitudes, is it not about time also that the practice was reinstated that used to exist of the district auditor being able to surcharge councillors for losses suffered by the local Authority (and hence the council tax payers) as a result of those councillors making incompetent decisions, and in a case like this going against their professional advisors and making irrational decisions?? There is, I believe, a long winded process available in certain circumstances of being able to have councillors appear before a first tier tribunal, but a simple straightforward process of recovering council tax payers money from incompetent power hungry councillors who think they are businessmen running a FTSE 100 company would soon have them thinking twice.

By K. W.

@David Sleath

A well worded FOI request to the LA would get you this. I don’t understand why there isn’t an annual article by the likes of PNW reporting on how many appeals NW LA’s are taken to and what their win/loss record is.

By Mis-Manager

    A great idea! I will see what we can do.

    By Julia Hatmaker

This application was rejected on the grounds that the ecological harm would be massive, and the application included building an entry road (the largest red circle) on land which is held in a covenant and not allowed to be built on. It wasn’t needlessly rejected, and frankly the council surprised many people by declining as in doing so they made a choice in line with what the residents of Knutsford actually wanted

By Lukas

I’m sure the residents of Knutsford don’t want development as is the case everywhere these days but we have a growing population, housing need, a poorly insulated and ageing stock and a duty by Councils to meet housing need targets which have been missed for years creating the current position, high prices and a lack of affordable housing. Officers make recommendations on planning policy grounds and all too often these days these are then ignored resulting in planning by Appeal. It needs reigning in and a better system adopting. Whilst points may have been made on the covenant that exists as a reason for declining this scheme it isn’t a planning matter.

By Max Homes

Related Articles

Sign up to receive the Place Daily Briefing

Join more than 13,000 property professionals and receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Join more than 13,000 property professionals and sign up to receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox.

By subscribing, you are agreeing to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

"*" indicates required fields

Your Job Field*
Other regional Publications - select below