Four residential dwellings at Land At Pigginshaw, Altrincham Road, Wilmslow

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to four phased residential dwellings, with only the primary access and associated infrastructure decided at this stage.

“25/3610/OUT Application Type: Outline Planning Location: Land At Pigginshaw, Altrincham Road, SK9 5NW Proposal: Outline application for the phased development of up to 4 residential self-build, custom-build or open market dwellings, all matters reserved apart from primary access point and associated infrastructure.”

“This application seeks outline planning permission for the phased development of up to 4 residential dwellings, the applicant states that these may be self-build, custom-build or open market dwellings and the development would be phased. All matters are reserved apart from access.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for seven detached dwellings was refused in 2013, and its appeal was dismissed in 2014.

“13/1700M - Outline planning application for the erection of 7 detached dwellings, refused 20 th…”

“June 2013. The subsequent appeal (APP/R0660/A/13/2206198) was dismissed on 27 th…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions covering reserved matters, drainage, trees, ecology, noise, contamination, construction and biodiversity.

“1.Time limits for commencement 2. Application for approval of reserved matters within three years of the date of this permission 3. Approval of reserved matters prior to commencement 4. Approved plans 5.Phasing plan 6. Submission of drainage strategy with reserved matters 7. Submission of levels with reserved matters 8. Submission of boundary treatments with reserved matters 9. Submission of Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement with reserved matters 10.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the site grey belt land, with unmet housing need and a sustainable location, while impacts could be addressed through design and conditions.

“Having regard to the above, the application proposals are considered to meet this key tests as to whether a site represents Grey Belt in that the site is not considered to ‘strongly’ contribute to either purposes a, b or d, and the areas and assets in footnote 7 do not provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.”

“Taking all the above matters into account, and given the limited scale of the application site, it is considered that the proposals would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Most consultees raised no objection, while Wilmslow Town Council recommended refusal because it considered the proposal out of character and inappropriate in the Green Belt.

“Environmental Protection: No objection, various conditions and informatives recommended in relation to noise, air quality, emissions and contaminated land.”

“Wilmslow Town Council: Wilmslow Town Council have recommended refusal on the grounds of being out of character with the area and inappropriate development in the Green Belt without exceptional circumstances.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Eleven representations objected over Green Belt harm, character, privacy, wildlife, drainage, highways, traffic, residential amenity and precedent.

“Eleven representations have been received objecting to this application. The points made are summarised as follows: • Planning permission for residential development on this same site was refused in 2013 and subsequently dismissed on appeal.”

“Impact on the local wildlife bats, foxes and birds in the area • Would make no meaningful difference to the local housing land supply. • Environmental impact on trees, wildlife, and drainage • Highway safety concerns, in that the creation of a new access to serve four family homes will increase traffic generation and create a new conflict point on the local road network, visibility concerns, raising concerns for highway and pedestrian safety.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The meeting heard from a ward councillor, a town councillor, an objector and the agent.

The committee’s decision

The committee delegated the decision for approval to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the chair, subject to the listed conditions.

“That for the reasons set out in the report and update report, the application be delegated back to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chair of the Northern Planning Committee to APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:”

“In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Planning has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Northern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.”

Minutes