Unanimous rejection for 225 Knutsford homes
Cheshire East councillors were fully opposed to Dewscope’s application for a housing development on 40 acres of greenfield land.
Dewscope had wanted to construct up to 225 homes on the site east of Longridge. The application also included a community building and dedicated public open space with active travel links. While much of the site is situated on land allocated for housing in the area’s local plan, a significant part extends onto Green Belt territory. It was this that councillors objected to on Tuesday, finding that the application represented inappropriate development on the protected area.
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 scruples with the scheme’s design.
The decision to reject the application came after 3 hours and 20 minutes of deliberations. It was made against planning officer recommendation, with the council’s planning officers saying that the provision for 67 much-needed affordable homes made the loss of Green Belt worth it.
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.
Uh oh, looks like Cheshire East will be paying a lot of legal fees when this appeal gets allowed! I hope the developers go after every penny.
By Dave
Cheshire East reject planning application, what a surprise!
By Anonymous
Good news, common sense prevails
By Josh Burns
Typical councillors doing anything to satisfy nimby voters.
The planning process needs to be completely divorced from politicians, they keep this up and we will end up with planning boards being removed…probably not a bad thing.
By Anonymous
Ridiculous application. What was wrong with just the allocated land.
By Anonymous
Keep house supply down and house prices will up. Vote for me!
By Anonymous
Another bang head on desk moment. It is an allocated site!
By Anonymous
Get the appeal in! Shameful decision!
By Tinpot
If Cheshire East has a deficit they should be looking to these schemes for greater council tax etc
By TJ
Knutsford doesent need more expensive housing
First time buyers can’t get anywhere
By Great
What Knutsford needs are some apartments and smaller houses.
By Rye&Eggs
Email sent To all C/E Cllrs 19.12.23;
As you may know a there is a further development in the 6yr saga surrounding the above development – the heart of which is a covenant protecting the length of the site’s eastern boundary preventing access to adjacent road networks & construction of utilities – water, sewage, electricity etc. The only viable access to the site the adjacent P.O.S. to the N/East of the site – land still within the green belt.
The intended build now the subject of intervention by a group of 11Cllrs & Officers calling for the `Upholding of the principles of the development plan` & the provision of `affordable housing’
In reality are the entire flawed scheme has been mired in 6yrs of subterfuge & unethical practices starting with denial of the existence of the covenant (Local Plan Strategy April 2016, pg 9, item 3.31 “The site is deliverable because there are no legal obstacles or covenants that restrict development”. And – C/E Local Plan `Knutsford Town Report’ , March 2016, Pg 19 – Highways Access; “Access can be provided from Longridge.”
Followed by the supression of information to the Greenbelt Commissioners re the existence of the covenant preventing access to the site – as verified by Esther Mcvee MP.
The final absurdity the now the intended sale of the site’s adjacent P.O.S. to the developer to route a highway & utilities to the site – a tripple wammy – we lose P.O.S. the Greenbelt & Wildlife Reserve. (this P.O.S. actually included in the initial consultation document as being `suitable for development’) close to Longridge & ideal for affordable homes if that is the genuine intention?
C/E Cllrs the local plan as it stands is clearly flawed revising would be to everyone’s advantage – pls end this fiasco
By D. Hawkins Save Longridge Greenbelt
I recently saw that Cheshire East are worried about following Birmingham – and other L.A’s – into insolvency. They could save money by making all their Planning Officers redundant as they seem to summarily ignore all their officer’s recommendations!! What an absolutely bloody ridiculous state of affairs!
By David Sleath
Dear Developers this is not a straighforward nimby campaign take a look at the application. If it went ahead the costs of dealing with the 106 and conditions will make it either 1. Unprofitable or 2. Unaffordable market prices. Given the number of years this has been going on for and the number of professionals involved in the design and layout it is disappointing that such a poor application was put forward. This was restricted to outline and access both of which were not as promoted through the Local Plan. If you look at one document on 21/3100M look at the design of the primary vehicle access, the congestion of all modes of access at one junction with bus stops either side and opposite a school road.
Oh and for access the extra land grab was for recreational field triple protected as Public Open Space Green Belt Local Green Space formerly a playing field until goal posts were removed during the planning process.
The larger land grab of Green belt land to the NE which would need managing and restricted to no development would be a heavy burden on new residents management fee.
By DebJam