Two homes at Land At Racecourse Road -, Greaves Road, Wilmslow

What was proposed

The application sought permission in principle for two dwellinghouses on land off Racecourse Road and Greaves Road.

“The application proposals seek planning permission in principle for the development of one residential dwelling. • The proposal would not meet any of criteria for allowing development in the open countryside and therefore would be contrary to CELPS policy PG6 • The proposals are not considered to fall within the ‘limited infilling in villages’ exception to inappropriate development.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The fenced grass site lies between existing buildings in the Green Belt, with earlier applications for homes refused in 1990, 2017 and 2022.

“The application site is a triangular piece of land off Greaves Road in Wilmslow. The application site is fenced and put to grass, being enclosed by hedgerows and post and rail fencing.”

“The site is located between houses on Greaves Road, Racecourse Road and the Premier Inn/Hickorys restaurant on Altrincham Road. Hickorys and its hotel are substantial buildings, with the hotel having three floors of accommodation with pitched roof above. Other houses locally are two-storey with a mixture of terrace, detached and semi-detached houses being found.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the site Grey Belt and sustainable, with housing benefits outweighing conflict with the open countryside policy.

“Having regard to the above assessment, the proposals are considered to meet the key tests for identifying grey belt land. The site is not considered to strongly contribute to any of the Green Belt purposes (a), (b) or (d), and none of the areas or assets listed in footnote 7 provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.”

“CELPS policy PG6 states that development in the Open Countryside is strictly controlled. Only development essential to rural uses, such as agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation, public infrastructure, or other appropriate rural activities will normally be allowed. Exceptions to this policy include: • Limited infilling in villages or small gaps in built frontages; affordable housing under rural exceptions policy; or dwellings of exceptional design/sustainability.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The town council recommended refusal over Green Belt and landscape harm, while highways, environmental protection, utilities and Natural England raised no objections.

“Within the ARUP/ Cheshire East detailed Green Belt Parcel Assessment this is classed as making a ‘significant contribution’ to Green Belt purposes. On that basis it cannot be considered to be Grey Belt and it should be refused on Green Belt grounds in accordance with policy PG3 of the CELPS.”

“The site was confirmed in Cheshire East Council’s own assessment undertaken by ARRUP to make a ‘significant’ contribution to the Green Belt and Wilmslow Town Council feel that the entire parcel of land works to prevent urban sprawl and provides separation between the town of Wilmslow and the urban area of the city of Manchester. The recent refusal of 25/1148, only 25 meters away, on the grounds of the impact on the green belt should equally apply to this site.”

Officer report

What residents said

Eleven letters raised concerns about drainage, access, Green Belt sprawl, landscape, wildlife, flooding and the site’s planning history.

“Eleven letters of representation have been received, and their comments can be summarised as follows: - • Any future application should be supported by appropriate flood risk and drainage information as the land retains water during heavy rain. • Access arrangements warrant careful consideration. Greaves Road is a private road and is not designed to accommodate increased or regular traffic.”

“The development does not comply with PG3 of the CELPS. • Not a sustainable location. • Applications within the Lindow Moss Landscape Character Area (as identified as Profile D1 of the Wilmslow Landscape Character Assessment) should identify, preserve and enhance, where possible, the overall historical and cultural significance of this important landscape and not negatively impact on its potential for recreation, education, nature conservation, food production and climate…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward councillor, a town councillor, an objector and the agent spoke about the application.

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application against the officer recommendation because it considered the site inappropriate Green Belt development and not Grey Belt.

“That the application be REFUSED against officer recommendations, for the following reason:”

“Inappropriate development in the Green Belt – site does not meet the definition of Grey Belt as it makes a strong contribution to purpose (a) and (c) of paragraph 143 of NPPF.”

Minutes