Conclusion at last ... of sorts
A LONG running planning battle over housing development in Macclesfield has finally reached some form of conclusion.
Why were the 134 homes approved?
Ultimately, members of the board felt they did not have a strong enough reason to refuse the reserved matters bid for 134 dwellings from Bellway Homes - despite a swathe of concerns.
Those worries included the removal of peat, surface water drainage, traffic flow, house mix and density, affordable housing provision, school funding, and air quality.
However, the plans on this site already had ‘outline’ planning approval from 2018.
This, in effect, tied the hands of this meeting to only considering the home design, housing mix, and peat removal strategy - all items listed in the reasons for deferral.
“I cannot see deferral working [again] and I cannot see any serious reasons to refuse this,” said Councillor Steve Edgar, who ‘reluctantly’ proposed approving the move.
The board heard ward councillor Lesley Smetham highlight some reasons for local opposition. She said: “The number of houses on the site has increased by 38 per cent [more] than what was agreed in the local plans. The houses are well-designed but closely packed. The loss of green space and separation of Henbury and Macclesfield are issues and this site contributes to the green belt significantly. It is clearly known that housing is needed - but at what cost?”
In response, Jon Suckley, representing developers Bellway Homes, said: “Bellway is a highly experienced builder. The design has been revised to significantly reduce the use of timber. The scheme has been developed comprehensively to address all considerations. The development will be high quality.”
He added that Bellway had brought in e3p to carry out specialist surveys of the peat deposits in the land.
Why did the 23 homes get refused?
The 23 homes were refused as the board decided this was ‘overdevelopment’ of the land - although the council’s head of planning warned that this was a ‘weak’ reason to do so if challenged at an appeal.
However David
Malcolm, who made the comments, said he understood councillors’ frustration with the way in which the second application had been brought forward.
That was because the authority had earmarked the land in question for ‘around 150 homes’ in its local plan strategy - and it is set to host 187. However, Coun Brian Puddicombe said that the borough was not in need of the extra units: “We have a 6.5 year housing supply so I would argue that these 23 do not make a difference now.
“It is overdevelopment now and I have concerns over the removal of condition six.”
Regardless of the motivations behind the members’ voting, one thing is for sure - this is not likely to be the final chapter of development wars on Chelford Road.