Eight dwellings at Birchwood House, Hough, Crewe

What was proposed

The application sought demolition of existing buildings and eight new homes with landscaping, access and infrastructure, using Birch Lane for vehicles.

“Application No: 25/4415/FUL Application Type: Full Planning Location: BIRCHWOOD HOUSE, 12 Birch Lane, Hough, Crewe, Cheshire East, CW2 5ZG Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and structures; and erection of 8 no. new dwellings, associated landscaping, access and infrastructure works.”

“Full planning is sought for the demolition of existing building and the erection of eight new dwellings, associated landscaping, access and infrastructure works.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site is a flat former boarding-kennels parcel in open countryside, beside developments where three and five homes have been built.

“The application site comprises a small parcel of land which relates to a wider site which was a former boarding kennels off Birch Lane, Hough. It previously housed the existing dwelling and its garage and outbuildings…”

“The parcel of land to the southwest has gained planning approval and three houses have been constructed on this site and they are now occupied. The parcel of the land to south east has also gained planning approval and five dwellings have now been constructed on this site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the housing supply shortfall engaged national policy and the proposal’s harmful impacts did not significantly outweigh its benefits.

“The NPPF seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing and the development would provide a contribution towards affordable housing which would make a contribution to meeting the Councils housing need.”

“On balance, the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies within the NPPF. The proposed development would benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development which weighs heavily in support of the proposed development. Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, environmental protection, housing, drainage, rights of way and utilities consultees raised no objection subject to requirements, while the parish council objected.

“CEC Environmental Protection – No objection subject to conditions/informatives requiring hours for construction, piling, dust, electric vehicle charging and contaminated land.”

“United Utilities – No objection subject to condition requiring details of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme and a foul water drainage scheme…”

Officer report

What residents said

Five objections raised concerns about consultation, ecology, overdevelopment, drainage, affordable homes, landscaping, roads and passing places.

“Lack of neighbour consultation • Application site was supposed to be retained as an ecological area as part of the approved developments to south and east • Over development of the site and out of character • Drainage issued from phase 1 • Where are the affordable units? • Trees removed previously so requires greater BNG • Need an acoustic fence and stronger landscaping treatment to northern boundary • Birch lane should be re-surfaced and passing places added…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent attended the meeting and spoke about the application.

The committee vote

The committee approved the application by majority, subject to the financial contribution and listed conditions, including a new bus stop requirement.

“That for the reasons set out in the report the application be APPROVED, subject to the following Heads of Terms:”

“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 Chair of the Southern Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.”

Minutes