Land east of Longridge, Knutsford, WA16 8PP

residential development of up to 225 dwellings and a building for Class F2 use (formerly Class D1) (with access considered)

Authority: Cheshire East
Appeal type: major · Planning Appeal
Procedure: Inquiry
Development: residential · Major dwellings
Inspector: Dyer I

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies, including any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it
The effect of the proposal on biodiversity of the area
The effect of the proposal on the provision of protected open space
Whether the proposal would be adequately integrated with existing development in Longridge
The effect of the proposal on transport networks
Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal

What decided it

The very substantial benefits of delivering the allocated housing, affordable housing and associated community and biodiversity gains were found to outweigh the identified harm to the Local Wildlife Site, satisfying the exception test in Policy SE3 and leading to overall accordance with the development plan.

The very substantial and significant benefits of housing delivery, affordable housing, economic benefits, biodiversity net gain and public open space access outweighed the significant residual harm to the Local Wildlife Site, so the reasons for and benefits of the proposal outweighed its adverse impact under Policy SE3.

Framework references: 155, 15, 60, 85, 103, 107, 114, 115, 57, 175, 180

Plan policies cited: Policy PG3, Policy SE3, Policy LPS38, Policy ENV2, Policy REC1, Policy E3, Policy E4, Policy SD2, Policy SE1, Policy GEN1, Policy D1, Policy SD1, Policy INF9, Policy SC3, Policy T2, Policy INF1, Policy SE2, Policy SE4, Policy SE5, Policy SE6, Policy ENV1, Policy ENV3, Policy ENV6, Policy ENV13

Judgments cited: R. (on the application of Finch) v Surrey CC, 2024 WL 03053228 (2024)

Read the decision letter on the Inspectorate’s site

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.