Planning appeal decision
Land To The North And South Of The A533 The Hill, Sandbach, CW11 2WE
an outline application, with all matters reserved except for access, for development comprising up to 325 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), the creation of a community park located between Manor Road and the A533 The Hill, other open space, landscaping, associated infrastructure, including earthworks and drainage
- Authority
- Cheshire East
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Parsons J
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the location, nature and scale of the proposal would be acceptable in a countryside location having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan and the character and appearance of the area
- the effect of the proposal on the settings of Grade II listed buildings, known as The Hill, Oakley House and Oakley Coach House
- whether the proposal would minimise ecological impacts and provide net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures and incorporating features which support priority or threatened species
- whether the proposal would place unreasonable burdens, as an agent of change, on a specialised care home (LCD) for people with physical and learning impairments
- If there is less than substantial harm caused to a heritage asset, whether this would be outweighed by public benefits
- If there is a conflict with the development plan, when taken as a whole, whether such conflict is outweighed by other material planning considerations
What decided it
The absence of a five-year housing land supply, engaging the tilted balance, meant the substantial weight attached to housing delivery and affordable housing outweighed the limited/moderate identified harms including the less than substantial heritage harm.
The limited conflict with settlement strategy, moderate harm to character and appearance, less than substantial heritage harm at the lower end of the spectrum, and limited BMVAL loss were outweighed by the substantial and significant benefits of housing delivery, affordable housing, accessible homes and other benefits, so permission was granted under the tilted balance.
Framework references: 200, 215, 11, 56, 58
Plan policies cited: CELPS Policy PG 1, CELPS Policy PG 6, CELPS PG 7, CELPS Policy SE 4, SADPD Policy ENV 3, SNDP Policy PC2, SADPD Policy PG 9, SNDP Policies PC3 and H1, SADPD Policy ENV 2, SADPD Policy ENV 1, SADPD Policy ENV 15, CELPS Policy SD 2, SADPD Policy RUR 5, Policy SE 7 of the CELPS, HER 1 and HER 4 of the SADPD, HC1 of SNDP, CELPS Policies EN 1 and EN 2, SADPD Policies HOU2 and HOU8, SNDP Policy H4, Policy SE6 of the CELPS, CELPS Policies C02 and C03, Policy SC 5 of the CELPS, Policy SC 4 of the CELPS
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.
®