Wedding treehouse plan dashed

A WEDDING venue’s hopes of increasing its overnight capacity with tree houses have been dashed following complaints including guests would disturb sheep and cows.

James Curtis wanted to create three en-suite tree houses for up to eight people in the grounds of Hilltop Country House, on Flash Lane, Bollington.

But Cheshire East Council planners refused his planning application saying it was not sustainable development in the green belt.

Seven residents had complained about the plans, raising issues including noise from hot tubs, overlooking homes and the tree houses being visually intrusive.

One said: “The tree houses are far too high. They could constitute an eyesore. The wildlife and sheep and cows would potentially be disturbed.

“We were not aware of plans for hot tubs on each veranda. There are children nearby and it would be unrealistic to expect wedding parties to be quiet during their celebrations.”

Currently the venue, which has hosted weddings since 2010, has four bed and breakfast bedrooms. The tree houses would have been self-catering with a kitchenette and dining area.

A report by Hilltop Country House Events Ltd submitted with the application said: “The proposals simply seek to provide additional space for overnight guest accommodation to allow more of the principal wedding party to stay together on site.

“The venue typically hosts one wedding per week, sometimes two weddings during peak periods.” The application argued although the site was in the green belt the necessary special circumstances existed to permit it to go ahead.

These were that the tree houses would support a sustainable rural business, help tourism and be screened by trees so not impact on visual amenity.

But Prestbury Parish Council also objected to plans, saying the tree houses would be ‘out of character and unacceptable development in the green belt.’

Cheshire East planners agreed and in refusing the application said: “Only moderate weight can be afforded to the economic benefits of the scheme with regards to the job creation, and visitor spending.

“(This is because of ) the small number of units proposed and that the accommodation would likely serve guests exclusively at the established venue rather than serving the wider tourism sector. Although the benefits are acknowledged, overall they are not deemed to clearly outweigh the combined harm to the green belt and the other harm identified.”