Inspector overturns Cheshire East’s unanimous rejection of 225 homes
Developer Dewscope has the go-ahead to construct a neighbourhood on 40 acres of greenfield land in Knutsford in a decision that even the Planning Inspectorate noted would be controversial.
“I am aware of widespread opposition to the proposal in the local area and that the outcome of this Inquiry is not the one that many people would wish for,” wrote inspector I A Dyer in their appeal decision letter, which reversed Cheshire East Council’s verdict.
The inspector continued: “However, I am obliged to determine this appeal in accordance with current planning policy and practice at both local and national level.”
Dewscope’s proposals for 225 homes on land east of Longridge had been rejected unanimously by Cheshire East councillors just before Christmas last year.
In addition to 225 homes (of which 67 were to be affordable), the application included several acres of dedicated public open space, a community building, and active travel links.
Cheshire East Council planning officers had recommended the application for approval. However, councillors objected to the inclusion of a significant amount of Green Belt in the plans.
The Green Belt land was to be reserved as recreational and ecological open space in the project, with a road going through one parcel to connect the neighbourhood to Longridge.
Councillors decried this as inappropriate development on Green Belt, while officers contended that the provision of 67 affordable homes justified the use.
The inspector, however, found the scheme to be appropriate for Green Belt development, nullifying the council’s main objection to the proposal.
Other concerns surrounding biodiversity, transport, and open space were found to not have merit, with the inspector noting that the development was policy compliant.
Emery Planning director John Coxon was the planning consultant for the Dewscope project and guided it through the appeal process.
Coxon said: “We are delighted that the Planning Inspectorate has recognised the merits of the proposal and allowed the appeal for our development at Longridge.
“This decision will enable the delivery of much-needed housing, including affordable homes, alongside significant community benefits,” he said.
“We remain committed to working closely with local stakeholders to ensure the project not only meets housing needs but also enhances the area while respecting its environmental and social context.”
E*scape Urbanists was the architect for the project. Tyler Grange, SCP Transport Planning, Cheshire Woodlands, Betts Hydro, and Shoosmiths worked on the appeal.
The planning application’s project team also included SCP Transport Planning, Cheshire Woodlands, and Betts Hydro, as well as PGLA Landscape Architects, Smith Grant Environmental Consultancy, and Architectural History Practice.
You can learn more about the application by searching reference number 21/3100M on Cheshire East Council’s planning portal. The appeal letter can be found by searching reference APP/R0660/W/24/3347883 on the Planning Inspectorate’s website.
Without knowing the details of this, it does seem to demonstrate why Labour are correct in extending delegated powers. That a committee can unanimously vote against an application with is recommended for approval, for it then to successful at appeal is just a complete waste of time and money.
It’s about time the lobbying and pantomime of planning committees is put on the back-burner.
By Anonymous
Good!
By Allergic to Squirrels
Another urban squall, vote Labour in this is what you get,
By Anonymous
In what way does this comply with “Local planning policy”
This has bugger all to do with local policy but everything to do with a government imposing on everybody else,,,
By Everton
Everton – I’ve not seen the details of the application, but the fact that Cheshire East’s Planning Officers recommended approval suggests that the application did meet local policy.
By Local Interest
Everton, controversial I know, but it might have something to do with the fact that the site is allocated for housing in the Local Plan and the developer, shock horror, wants to build houses on it. This is exactly why Labour’s plans to extend delegated powers are needed.
By Anonymous
I think this is a bad decision, building on yet another green belt. We will be in for more flooding.
By Anonymous
How is it right that 1 person can overturn the views of all the local councillors, developers will happily outspend the council & locals peoples views to trash the amenities & beautiful areas for humans & wildlife with ghastly inadequately insulated?? overcrowded together rabbit hutch buildings lacking solar panels & other modern elements? so many green amenity areas are concreted over. Local peoples views must take precedence.
By Neil Armstrong
Absolute joke that this ended up appeal. Utter waste of time, money and effort. Was the developer awarded costs? Just to add further insult to the rate payer… Not sure when committee members will ever realise they need to pick their battles and support officers rather than voting things out, contrary to their own experts advice on nothing greater than a whim!
By T.D. Smith
Excellent news!
By Anonymous
The one and only access to new devolment will be next to two schools clearly people making decisions that do not live in the area .
By Anonymous
Oh dear oh dear, the Nimbys are going to be very upset. I hope the developers go for costs against Cheshire East
By Dave
Great more costs for us to bear, thanks CEC councillors
By CEC tax payer
This utter nonesense of PIanning Committee’s overturning Officer recommendation needs stoppig once and for aII. I dont agree with 99% of what this Government do but on this one their pIans for overhauIing pIanning are spot on!!!
By David SIeath
Everton, this perhaps shows that the local plan setting in some places is a bad faith performative exercise to create the appearance of addressing housing need, while gunning down actual compliant proposals in committee. Rayner is not wrong.
By Rich X
@Neil Armstrong, you do realise that nothing would get built if it were up to local people or if applications were refused based on the number of objections? Its all about house prices.
By Anonymous
It’s disappointing that these developers are being permitted to build on this wild land.
But there are other concerns too. The local infrastructure is already struggling. If homes are built then there MUST be improvements to the roads linkng that area to Knutsford town centre. There needs to be provision made in the schools (currently at capacity) and medical services (our local GP practice is already over subscribed).
Cheshire East has no money to provide these facilities. So if these developers want to build homes the developers must include these in their plans and budgets.
By Anonymous
It was policy compliant as the land in question was removed from the Green Belt by Cheshire East Council as part of the 2017 Local Plan processes. This is one of the best examples as to why Planning Committees are not fit for purpose – the time and cost to the public purse should be surcharged onto those Councillors who voted against the officer recommendation to approve.
By Anonymous
Knutsford’s road infrastructure is at bursting point already. Given the most direct route into knutsford, towards Manchester and towards the M6 is by using back roads next to two schools is just a recipe for disaster…. again.
By Anonymous
This is clearly another “foot through the door project”. Build the initial infrastructure, with the proviso of affordable housing which gets it passed planning, then come back and build on the parcels of land next to it. look at the layout, it’s clearly opening up the ability to build on those.
By Cheshire council Spy
There is enough brown belt land to build 1.5m houses. This is criminal.
By Treehugger
Refuse new housing and local house prices rise. I’m all right Jack, that is why I vote Tory.
By Anonymous
Cheshire East should draw up a design code like CWAC is doing.
By Rye