18-home residential development at Land Off Padgbury Lane, West Heath, Congleton

What was proposed

The application sought 18 homes with access, landscaping, parking, servicing and supporting infrastructure.

“Application No: 25/3691/FUL Application Type: Full Planning Location: Land Off Padgbury Lane, West Heath, Congleton, CW12 4LU Proposal: Full planning application for residential development for 18 dwellings (Use Class C3), including access, landscaping, parking, servicing and ancillary infrastructure.”

“This is a full planning application for a residential development comprising 18 dwellings, including access, landscaping, parking, servicing and ancillary infrastructure.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The 0.84-hectare site is open countryside beside Congleton, with housing nearby, trees on site and Loach Brook along its western boundary.

“The application site is situated on the western side of Padgbury Lane, Congleton. It is approximately 0.84 hectares in size, with new residential development to the south and existing residential properties to the north and east. To the west, Loach Brook runs along the boundary of the site.”

“The site is designated as being within Open Countryside in the adopted local plan. There are trees within the site, none of which are subject to preservation orders.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council objected, while several consultees had no objection or accepted the scheme subject to conditions and further controls.

“Housing: Originally objected due to the housing mix, this objection has now been withdrawn due to changes to the scheme.”

“Congleton Town Council: Objection – Intrusion into open countryside and overdevelopment of the area. Ongoing issue and continued risk with flooding and sewage leakage on Padgbury Lane. Highways safety issues with speeding cars adjacent to narrow pavements. Bat survey not undertaken and proposed damage to hedges to enable the erection of scaffolding.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Eleven representations raised concerns including affordability, traffic, unsafe access, flooding, sewage, environmental effects, pollution, privacy and inadequate infrastructure.

“Housing is not affordable • Highway safety and traffic generation • Unsafe access • Flood risk • Inadequate sewage system • No buffer zone between existing dwellings and new ones • Environmental impact • Impact on wildlife • Impact on biodiversity • Urban sprawl • Inadequate infrastructure…”

“Light and noise pollution • Loss of privacy • Loss of light • Air pollution • Impact on Jodrell Bank • Should be kept as agricultural land • No ‘buffer zone’ between new and existing properties • Hedgerow has already been removed…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The speakers included a ward councillor, a town councillor, two objectors and the agent.

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application by majority, subject to the listed S106 contributions, conditions, an access and pedestrian-link requirement, and a foul-drainage informative.

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

“10% of energy requirements from renewable or low carbon energy 28. Notwithstanding the approved plans details of a pedestrian link to the north of plots 10-13 and a timetable for implementation to be submitted and approved. Development to be completed in accordance with the approved timetable 29. Submission and approval of plans to show an access stub to the boundary with the land to the south to be submitted and approved.”

Minutes