70 homes with open space at Land Off London Road, Davenham, Northwich

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 70 homes, open space, landscaping, drainage and access from London Road, with pedestrian access through Mere Bank.

“Description of development: Outline planning application for the erection of up to 70 dwellings with public open space, landscaping, sustainable urban drainage system (SuDs) and the principal means of vehicular access from London Road. Demolition of dwelling to allow for pedestrian access onto Mere Bank. All matters reserved except for means of access…”

“Vehicular access would be provided via a new priority junction onto London Road, with an internal road network. In addition, pedestrian access is proposed from the northern boundary via Mere Bank, facilitated through the demolition of an existing dwelling, providing enhanced connectivity to the existing settlement.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 5.9-hectare agricultural site lies south of Davenham, outside the settlement boundary, beside Peckmill Brook and near Peckmill Farm.

“The application site extends to approximately 5.9 hectares and is located to the south of Davenham Village, along the southern edge of an area known as Mere Heath, a small hamlet that now forms part of Davenham. Davenham itself lies within the wider Northwich settlement area, with the site adjoining the defined settlement boundary to the south, within open countryside.”

“The site is influenced by Peckmill Brook, which runs along its eastern boundary, with land levels rising gradually from the brook and access point towards the western and northern parts of the site. The land extends southwards, tapering in shape towards the A533. An established belt of mature trees and shrubs follows the route of Peckmill Brook and extends along parts of the southern boundary, providing a strong and well- defined natural edge to the site.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, while most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, contributions or mitigation.

“Environment Agency – no objection subject to conditions, requiring compliance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, including finished floor levels and flood mitigation measures.”

“Highways Officer – No objection to the proposal, confirming that the access arrangements and traffic impacts are acceptable and can be safely accommodated within the local highway network, subject to appropriate conditions to secure details of internal highways, footways cycle paths, details of retaining structures, car and cycle parking, construction management plan and agreed mitigation.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

More than 70 representations were received, mostly objections concerning infrastructure, traffic, flooding, countryside, ecology, settlement character and the Mere Bank access.

“More than 70 representations have been received to date, the significant majority of which object to the proposal. The amended scheme, to include the proposed northern access, was also publicised and subject to further consultation, resulting in an additional 28 representations. The issues raised across all representations can be summarised as follows:”

“Lack of infrastructure (schools, GPs, dentists, utilities at capacity) • Traffic increase, congestion and highway safety concerns and creating a staggered junction • Land stability • Loss of greenfield/Green Belt land and countryside • Impact on wildlife, biodiversity and ancient woodland • Flood risk and drainage concerns • Conflict with Neighbourhood Plans / outside settlement boundary • Harm to village character and identity / coalescence of settlements • Unsustainable…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a parish councillor, the applicant and the ward member spoke to the committee.

Members’ debate

Members questioned infrastructure funding, flooding and the missing sequential test, and asked whether the development exceeded neighbourhood-plan density guidance.

“Referencing the recently approved developments in the area, members stated that local infrastructure was struggling to meet the increased demand, which this application would further negatively contribute to, if approved, would officers be able to clarify what funding support the local area would receive to improve services. Officers advised as with all applications, the applicant would need to provide relevant Section 106 funding.”

“Referencing the current local plan for the area, members requested clarification if the density of the development would be in breach. Officers advised that the neighbourhood plan referred to developments of no more than 25 dwellings and acknowledged that the proposal exceeded this figure , however officers did advise the local plan was dated and prepared before the current housing targets.”

Minutes

The vote

A proposal to refuse was carried by five votes to four, with one abstention.

“A proposal to refuse the application on grounds of loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land, harm to the character and appearance of the rural landscape through the encroachment of built development into the countryside, erosion of the setting and significance of Peckmill Farm, a non-designated heritage asset, and . failure to demonstrate compliance with the sequential approach to flood risk was carried with five votes in favour, four against and one abstention.”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

The committee refused because countryside development, agricultural land loss, landscape and heritage harm, and failure on flood-risk sequencing outweighed the housing benefits.

“Nevertheless, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, the cumulative adverse impacts arising from conflict with the development plan spatial strategy, landscape harm, loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land, harm to the significance of a non-designated heritage asset and conflict with flood risk policy significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.”

Minutes