Cheshire East refuses 92 former Green Belt homes
A failure to supply sufficient information on the scheme’s impact on wildlife and highways proved to be the downfall of Jones Homes and Redrow Homes’ plans for the 16-acre plot off Congleton Road at the council’s strategic planning board meeting yesterday.
Designed by The Environment Partnership, the scheme would have seen 92 one- to five-bedroom houses delivered on the site near Macclesfield. Of these homes, 30% would have been affordable.
Jones and Redrow’s outline plans also included more than six acres of open space, featuring a children’s play area.
The development would have been accessed off a new four-way roundabout junction off Congleton Road.
Refusal of the plans followed officer recommendations.
Councillors expressed concerns regarding a lack of information provided on the scheme’s impact on highways and wildlife, as well as how the masterplan would be delivered. There were also fears surrounding the loss of employment and industrial space.
The 16-acre greenfield site was removed from the Green Belt following the adoption of the Cheshire East Local Plan and forms part of a wider 66-acre plot allocated for up to 300 homes, as well as employment space.
Lichfields is the planning consultant for the scheme. The project team also includes transport consultant CBO Transport, arboricultural consultant Cheshire Woodlands, and noise consultant E3P.
This isn’t the first time the pair of housebuilders have worked together. Last November, Jones and Redrow were granted planning permission to deliver 216 homes off Chelford Road in Macclesfield.
To find out more about the Congleton Road plans, search for application number 21/4113M on Cheshire East Council’s planning portal.
Cheshire East refuses 92 homes on a site allocated for development would be a better headline
By Headliner
I was at this committee. This application really didn’t fair well.
By MJ
On the face of it you are left wondering why this scheme was recommended for refusal – baffling
By Anonymous
Are they going to build new schools (No)? Are they going to build a already over populated doctors surgery (NO)? Are they going to create more employment for the town that is empty of any kind of industry (NO)? This town needs investment by more houses that most people these days cannot afford to buy .
By Jc
Good luck building out any of those parcels, looks like no one has thought about how it might actually work under an RM application.
Probably the worst masterplan I’ve seen for a while.
By Anonymous
They never even consider infrastructure. Is there a bus, will it need a doctors surgery, a dentist, a vet, kindergarten, school, shops, better roads? It’s just profit, profit, profit.
By Anonymous
You need to read the report to understand why this scheme was recommended for refusal. The article does not give an adequate summary of those reasons – which on close reading are sound (in my opinion).
By Anonymous
What’s that smell…..?? A small outline, that’s been in for 2 years, did CEC officers not think to ask for info? Its hard to find the reasons for refusal as objections in consultation responses on the portal – no highways or noise responses, arboriculture arrived so late that reason for refusal was in the late items pack. Sort yourselves out CEC.
By Mr N Imby
Define affordable. Council housing, bungalows needed not more luxury homes. All these estates look the same, no imagination. No solar panels, still gas heating. Developers need to show some originality.
By AW
So sad that land is being removed from greenbelt. There are places in Macclesfield that would benefit from redevelopment and upgrade. That doesn’t suit the builders as it’s not as straightforward.
By Anonymous
Councillors getting tough, the just “rubber stamp it attitude” from before 2019 election has gone. Time for the local plan to be reviewed, 11 year supply.
Jones Redrow partnership, is that the exit plan for JH?
By Malcolm David
The green belt should be saved. Use the old empty buildings to make affordable housing, not high priced homes.
By Anonymous