42 affordable homes at Land Off Close Lane, Alsager

What was proposed

The application sought 42 dwellings, access from Close Lane, roads, footways, landscaping, open space, drainage and related works.

“Application No: 23/4788C Application Type: Full Planning Location: Land Off, Close Lane, Alsager, Proposal: Erection of 42 no. dwellings, including access from Close Lane, construction of roads and footways, landscaping, public open space, drainage, and other associated works – resubmission following refusal of application ref: 21/6113C”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 1.523-hectare site includes garden land, fields, hedgerows and trees within Alsager’s settlement boundary, with residential development nearby.

“The site itself consists of two fields with hedgerows and hedgerow trees, divided by a central post and wire fence. There are trees on the site covered by a Tree Preservation Order (north-west boundary).”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeal

Earlier proposals included approved 16-home schemes, while a 55-home proposal was dismissed at appeal because of open space and garden-size concerns.

“21/6113C – Erection of 55 no. dwellings, including access from Close Lane, construction of roads and footways, landscaping, public open space, drainage, and other associated works – dismissed at appeal 30th June 2023.”

“Dismissed at appeal on the basis of insufficient open spaces/garden sizes. Design reason was not upheld.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because drainage had no demonstrated feasible outfall and the layout provided insufficient SuDS, outweighing the scheme’s benefits.

“However, the proposal has not demonstrated a feasible outfall option for site drainage and the proposed layout has insufficient SuDS provision and therefore conflicts with Policies SE13 of the CELPS & ENV 16 of the SADPD and TTS9 & TTS10 of the ANP.”

“The proposal has not demonstrated a feasible outfall option for site drainage and the proposed layout has insufficient SuDS provision. Therefore, there is no identified drainage solution for this development and the proposal conflicts with Policies SE13 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, ENV16 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and TTS9 & TTS10 of the Alsager Neighbourhood Plan.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or contributions, but the Flood Risk Team objected to the drainage proposals.

“CEC Flood Risk – Object as the proposal has not demonstrated a viable surface water outfall and the proposed layout has insufficient Sustainable Drainage Systems…”

“CEC Environmental Protection – No objection subject to conditions/informatives regarding working hours for construction sites, piling, floor floating and contaminated land…”

Officer report

What people said

The parish council and 79 representations raised concerns about development principle, highways, infrastructure, ecology, open space, amenity, design and flooding.

“Principle • Overdevelopment in Alsager • Site is not in the Local Plan as an area for development • The Council has a five-year supply of housing • The site is in the open countryside • Previous applications have been refused for the site • Alsager is at its limit in terms of development • S.106 contributions required including education, traffic calming measures and health • There are brownfield sites in the surrounding area • White Moss Quarry remains an allocation in the…”

“Green Space / Agricultural Land • Loss of green space / open countryside. • Walking areas have been lost. • Impacts on agricultural land. • Little amount of open space for children to play / meeting in the proposed development and local surroundings. • Cranberry Moss has suffered a noticeable increase in path erosion, litter and damage to trees. Further building will only worsen the environmental negatives this area has endured.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The meeting heard from a town councillor and two objectors in relation to the application.

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application for the stated drainage reasons, citing the lack of a feasible outfall and insufficient SuDS provision.

“That application 23/4788C be REFUSED as detailed in the Officer recommendation, as the proposal has not demonstrated a feasible outfall option for site drainage and the proposed layout has insufficient SuDS provision.”

Minutes