Nine homes at Land Adjacent To Alfred King Close, Shavington, Crewe

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing storage buildings and building nine homes with one access, parking and landscaping.

“Application No: 26/0640/FUL Application Type: Full Planning Location: Land Adjacent To Alfred King Close Shavington , Crewe , CW2 5UW Proposal: Demolition of existing storage buildings, erection of 9 no. dwellings, 1 no. vehicular access point, associated parking and landscaping…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is 0.6 hectares beside existing housing, within open countryside and the Green Gap, and includes storage, a paddock and part of a garden.

“The application relates to an area of land to the rear of the dwelling at 42 Chestnut Avenue. The site is also bound to the south and west by a modern residential development fronting Alfred King Close and William Yorke Place. The site extends to 0.6 hectares and is located within the Open Countryside and Green Gap.”

“The site consists of part of the rear garden of 42 Chestnut Avenue, an area of external storage (including shipping containers) and a paddock. This part of the site which is included within the red-line boundary would not be developed.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An outline application for two dwellings was refused in 2005.

“P05/1088 – Outline application for two dwellings – Refused 6 th October 2005”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site was well related to Shavington, housing supply was below five years, and benefits outweighed adverse effects.

“The Council is no longer able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, and the site is well related to the existing settlement and is of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the availability of infrastructure (Policy S5 of the NPPF). As such, the development should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects.”

“The benefits of this development would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects and as such the proposal is recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Most consultees raised no objection or sought conditions, while the Flood Risk Manager objected because information was insufficient and drainage was later conditioned.

“Environmental Protection: No objection. Conditions suggested in relation to a travel plan and contaminated land.”

“Flood Risk Manager: Object as insufficient information has been provided.”

Officer report

What people said

Twenty-five objections raised concerns about highways, parking, drainage, flooding, wildlife, privacy, noise, infrastructure, design and the Green Gap.

“- The applicant is intending on keeping an access to the rest of their land. Do they intend to use this access to develop the rest of their land which is being used for business purposes. A covenant exists and relates to easement arrangements. - The adjacent business has never been business rated. - An earlier application was refused on highways grounds. These additional 9 units should be refused on highways grounds. - Excessive traffic and hazard to pedestrians.”

“- Impact upon property value. - Increased noise pollution. - Increased odour due to increased waste and sewage accumulation. - Chestnut Avenue and Vine Tree Avenue are not wide enough to support the additional traffic flow. - Inadequate parking provision to serve the proposed development. - The existing estate already struggles with emergency vehicle access. - Traffic congestion problems at school drop off and pick up times. - Impact upon wildlife including newts.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent attended the meeting and spoke about the application.

The committee vote

The committee approved the application unanimously.

“That for the reasons set out in the report and update report the application be APPROVED, subject to a S106 agreement with the following Head of Terms:”

Minutes