Wain Estates victorious in 230-home Cheshire East appeal
The Planning Inspectorate sided with the strategic land company, arguing that the council was wrong to refuse the outline plans for 160 houses, 70-bed care facility, and a 30-acre countryside park in Sandbach.
Wain Estate’s project will provide an array of bungalows, townhouses, semi-detached homes, and detached houses with between one and five bedrooms. Of the homes proposed, 30% would be affordable. The scheme also includes a community hub.
With the approval of its application in hand, Wain Estates is set to commence marketing the 42-acre site off Crewe Road imminently with the assistance of Savills.
Councillors from Cheshire East had voted to reject Wain Estates’ Sandbach project at a planning committee meeting in October. The decision was made contrary to officer recommendation.
The reasons for refusal included impact on highway safety around Wheelock Primary School, loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, the urbanising impact on an existing countryside gap, and adverse impacts on a nearby ancient woodland.
Cheshire East Council opted to not defend its decision at the appeal, having had further discussions with Wain Estates about the application. According to the appeal decision the council changed its position, agreeing that the project should have been approved.
The layout for the housing development was drawn up by E*SCAPE Urbanists. Credit: via planning documents
Inspector D M Young concurred, systematically dismantling each of the reasons for refusal.
The inspector grounded their remarks at the start by emphasising that Cheshire East Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Because of this, the planning balance is naturally tilted towards consenting residential projects.
In evaluating the scheme, the inspector referenced a similar project on the same site from 2016 that had lost its appeal. This had been due to impacts of the “green gap”.
This new project has a vastly different layout from the one that had been refused, with the country park on the southern side of the plot, thereby softening the impact on the gap.
The inspector also found there was not enough evidence to show that the project would harm the safety of the area around Wheelock Primary School, noting that the proposals for a priority junction and additional double lines had been designed to reduce speeds in the area and prevent dangerous parking.
Regarding the loss of farmland, this was agreed to not outweigh the benefits of providing housing. The inspector noticed that loss of farmland had not been viewed as a valid reason for refusal in the 2016 appeal either.
The inspector was confident that the project would not impact the ancient woodland, noting that there were no works proposed in the woodland itself or its 15-metre buffer zone. The drainage scheme had also been designed to not adversely affect this year.
Emery Planning led Wain Estates through the successful appeal, with Kings Chambers’ Martin Carter as the barrister. The project team also included GHC Archaeology and Heritage, Barnes Walker, Astute Transport Planning, The Environment Partnership, E*SCAPE Urbanists, Smith Grant, and TDS.
Cheshire East was represented by Andrew Byass of Landmark Chambers.
You can review the application by searching reference 25/1403/OUT on Cheshire East Council’s planning portal. The appeal documents can be found by searching reference APP/R0660/W/25/3376597 on the Planning Inspectorate’s casework portal.
Cheshire East will be returning to the appeal hotseat next week, when the inquiry will be held on its refusal of Bloor Homes’ 325-residence project on 47 acres in Sandbach. The project includes 98 affordable homes and 20 acres of green space.
Like the case in the Wain Estates appeal, councillors voted to refuse against officer recommendation. You can review the planning documents by searching 25/0211/OUT on Cheshire East’s planning portal.
Another appeal from Bloor Homes against a refusal in Cheshire East – this time for 200 homes by Macclesfield – is awaiting a decision, with the inquiry having been held on 31 March.
As in the two cases above, it had also been recommended for approval. The reference number on Cheshire East’s planning portal for this application is 25/0210/OUT.
Can’t wait for the FOI to establish the financial costs to constituents resulting from these 3 extremely cavalier decisions by members….
By T.D.Smith
Can Place do a FOI request to Cheshire East to find out how much they are spending on these appeals. It’s shocking that they appointed a barrister for the inquiry into a decision they opted not to defend! I’m guessing Wain didn’t seek an award of costs, but the Inspectorate has discretion to award them regardless – it seems like an appropriate scenario to have done so!
By Anonymous
@anonymous 12.06pm – you can make an FOI request yourself – that’s the point of them !
By Just saying....
Appeal baby Appeal…. the ongoing circus of planning and council taxpayer costs continues.
By Coco
Congratulations Cllr Gardiner. You will succeed in ensuring that the Government will take responsibility for planning away from your Council. When this happens, and it should, let’s hope that you will stand up in Strategic Planning Board, and hold your hands up. Suspect you will not face up to your role in delivering so many refusals that have been overturned at Appeal.
By Anonymous
I dread to think the amount of taxpayers money we are wasting on these appeals that stand no chance. The NIMBY mafia are costing us a fortune!
By Anonymous
I cannot blame anyone who objects to a Wainhomes development.
By PLF_Cloud_Cuckoo_Land
After watching Councillor Gardiner at the planning committee, he should be held accountable for how he influenced things. What a waste of taxpayers’ money! Also from reading the decision it also looks like Cheshire East might have missed out on a big chunk of Section 106 contributions!!
By Sensible voice
So how many more appeals are Cheshire East going to wave through because they can’t afford to fight them. When will they have a 5year plan or has that gone by the wayside. Is there sufficient infrastructure to sustain these developments? Are the roads, sewers etc going to support the extra inhabitants with most households have 2 cars or more and Sandbach is already grid locked in the mornings and afternoons. This does not bear thinking about.
By Anonymous
Sandbach is heading towards a City, such a shame the amount of new build taken place it has destroyed the ambience of this lovely market town.
By Anonymous
This means another 500 cars on already overdeveloped Cheshire.You only need to look at Winsford , Crewe, Nantwich ,Northwich and Chester to see overcrowded areas and excessive traffic.Cheshire councils are ruining what was an agricultural county.They cannot fix the roads you only need to look at the A41 and A49 to see the current abominable unsafe roads.
By David
Hey, why not just turn all out Green into faceless boxes, under the guise of Progress…wake up people!! There’s plenty of brownfield & empty housing Stock to serve for years.
By Anonymous
It is absolutely sickening that yet more of our country’s beautiful countryside will be destroyed by greedy cash hungry developers, all in ‘the name of ‘Economic Progress and Housing demands’. Our Open countryside, and our green belt countryside with its breathtaking woodlands, meadows and farmlands should be left alone because it ready does provide so many of us with an escape from the stress, the sickening traffic pollution, the dirt and the crime of urban life. It is a pathetic joke on the part of these developers when they waffle on about affordable homes and jobs being created, when all you have to do is look at all these cities and towns in England which are slowly but surely eating up the surrounding countryside and just lowering the quality of many people’s lives with more overcrowded streets, more sewage waste and more crime and traffic problems.
There is no respect for the natural environment, no respect for wildlife, no respect for people’s entitlement to open spaces which are non man made; we are now seeing human action at its most greedy, selfish, and overmaterialistic.
By Peter Ahern
This is why planning committees should be removed across the board of all councils. They dont have a clue and just waste people’s money because they think they are entitled too.
Get rid of all of them.
By Anonymous
Absolutely incorrect to report that the Inspector took apart all the opposing arguments. He completely ignored expert geological evidence pointing to potentially catastrophic subsidence issues on the site and ignored the Woodland Trust’s expert advice that a 50M buffer should be observed to avoid irreversible damage to irreplaceable ancient woodland. A total travesty.
By Anonymous
The article above is very biased towards Wain Estates. This development will destroy the last section of a Roman Road. It will also destroy other archeological assets from at least three different time periods. All ignored by the inspector. The land is also subject to brine subsidence. Good luck getting a mortgage if you buy one of these houses. Also ignored by the inspector. Then there is the environmental cost and loss of habitats for numerous protected species, also ignored. The Woodland Trust recommended a distance of 50m from the ancient (protected) woodland. He ignored that advice and went for 15m. This has to be one of the most questionable decisions this inspector has made.
By Anonymous
Good luck to Savills and Wain Estates selling this site to house builders once they learn about the risk of catastrophic slope failure which were conveniently sidelined at appeal.
By Anonymous
The impact on the ancient woodland be very negative and on the two woodland copses where night dwelling species such as owls live – where light, noise and disturbance will be threats – that might cause displacement of such species
By Paul Greenslade
Cheshire East has no defence against these speculative applications by developers and their planning advisors, who are once again taking advantage of Government stupidity & arrogance. The Council struggled through the mid 2010s with this problem as it didn’t have a valid Local Plan. Once this was finally completed, the Council worked with developers to achieve & later exceed the then Government’s housing targets, but with proper planning & key objectives to deliver well designed & located housing. This Government has increased the housing target, resulting in the uncontrolled, speculative development we are now seeing. It matters not to the Government or developers where housing is located. Thus we have unplanned, unco-ordinated house building once again, with potential long-term problems, due to lack of infrastructure & services. On the one hand the Government talks housing numbers and on the other talks about design quality, sustainability, infrastructure & cohesive communities. Sadly, it is clear only the numbers are important to them; the rest is just paid lip service. What a shambles, though I guess nothing should surprise us with this incompetent Government.
By Mike
Did the planning inspector understand how a CBA is calculated re the loss of agricultural land? Probably not take the easy way out and side with the greedy builder.
By Anon
It would be wise if other Members listened to their professional officers rather than a certain individual who thinks he knows better. The decision to refuse the inevitable, has cost the local area nearly £500K in contributions. Hang your head in shame
By Anonymous
It seems that the people who live in the Sandbach area are seen as having no right to say ‘no’ to greedy capitalists. Our lives do not matter. Our wellbeing is being destroyed one way or another. Money is all that matters. There is no planning system any more. How many times does the planning officer tell us that we have no legal argument to prevent a development. What is the point of even trying? This government has let down all rural areas in England. No matter what else they do, they have destroyed towns, villages and hamlets. Our countyryside is not just plots of land, it is a nature reserve, which helps to fight climate change.
By KJ Ratcliffe