116-home housing development at Land West Of Moorsfield Avenue And Tollgate Drive, Audlem

What was proposed

The outline application sought 116 homes, including 35 affordable homes, with access decided now and other matters reserved.

“Application No: 25/2194/OUT Application Type: Outline Planning Location: Land West Of Moorsfield Avenue And Tollgate Drive, Audlem, Crewe, CW3 0LA”

“Proposal: Outline Planning Application for a residential development of 116 dwellings (Inc. 35 affordable dwellings) with access included.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The 9.16-hectare agricultural site is in open countryside beside Audlem, with steep levels, trees, waterways, flood zones and nearby heritage assets.

“The site consists of agricultural land, which is bound by trees and hedgerows, there are significant level changes across the site. None of the trees on the site are protected via a Tree Preservation Order.”

“The Shropshire Union Canal forms the eastern boundary of the site and to the west of the site is the River Weaver. The western part of the site includes land which falls within Flood Zones 2 and 3.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier application for up to 34 homes was refused in 2017, while an application for up to 87 homes was withdrawn.

“17/0774N - Outline planning permission for Development of up to 34 dwellings with all matters reserved except access – Refused 26 th April 2017 for the following reasons:”

“16/0725N - Outline application for development for up to 87 dwellings, incorporating self-build plots, open space provision, landscaping and access – Withdrawn 2 nd February 2017”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the site’s level changes, engineering needs, tree impacts and harm to a wide landscape view outweighed housing and economic benefits.

“The application site is the subject of substantial level changes on either side, with levels dropping steeply towards the River Weaver and the Shropshire Union Canal. The application does not demonstrate that the topography of the site has been fully considered, and it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development could be accommodated on the site without substantial engineering works/retaining structures which would cause harm to the character and appearance…”

“1 The proposed development would result in very substantial harm in terms of the landscape impact, the harm to the character and appearance of the area and the loss of existing trees. The application does not demonstrate that the proposed development could be accommodated on the site whilst responding sympathetically to the topography of the site and without the introduction of substantial engineering works/retaining structures.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Several consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or contributions, while the Canal and River Trust identified canal, drainage, access and buffer concerns.

“Canal and River Trust: Advise that suitably worded conditions are necessary to address their concerns. The C&RT make the following comments: - The C&RT have concerns that the proposed development will result in the potential for future occupiers using the lock gates to cross the canal to access the towpath on the opposite side of the canal. The lock gates are narrow and are designed for use by boaters when navigating the lock.”

“- It is not clear how the area adjacent to the canal will retain its open character. - Request whether some additional planting could be provided within the area adjacent to the canal. - It remains difficult to consider the impact upon the canal corridor without clear details of the canal buffer zone. is imperative that planting within the buffer zone is secured by condition and the swale does not appear an engineered solution.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The meeting heard from a ward councillor, a parish councillor, an objector, a supporter and the agent or applicant.

The committee’s decision

Members noted the reports and refused the application as recommended by officers, with appeal-related planning obligations also approved.

“Members noted the content of the report and the update report.”

“That application 25/2194/OUT be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes