Caravan residential site at Land Adjacent Ness Cottage, Coalpit Lane, Chester

What was proposed

The application sought a residential caravan site with hard standing, a utility block, one static caravan, one touring caravan and parking.

“The application seeks planning permission to change the use of the land for stationing of caravans for residential occupation with associated hard standing and utility block.”

“The submitted plans show that the site would comprise of an area of hardstanding (approximately 368 square metres), 1 static caravan, 1 touring caravan, a utility block, and parking for two vehicles. The plans show an area retained as grass for wildflowers/tree planting and an area of shrubs/trees. As the site is to be occupied by a single family unit, it is taken to comprise one pitch.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The narrow countryside site lies in the North Cheshire Green Belt between trees, scrub and Ness Cottage, with other homes and businesses nearby.

“The site lies between an area of trees/scrub and the residential property Ness Cottage. There are several dwellings located to the northeast and southwest of the site along Coalpit Lane and Parkgate Road. There are also two commercial premises in the area.”

“The site is in the countryside, within the North Cheshire Green Belt.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications for a house or bungalow on the land were refused, while access to adjoining land was approved in 1986.

“There have been several planning applications on this area of land, including:”

“6/6829 Site for detached house with double garage – Refused 31.07.1979 • 6/2825 Erection of Bungalow – Refused 13.09.1976 • 6/15254 New bungalow and garage (outline) – Refused 11.04.1986 • 6/15881 Access to land adjoining Ness Cottage – Approved 11.09.1986 • 04/00391/OUT Detached two storey dwelling with separate garage (Outline) – Refused 23.04.2004”

Officer report

The officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because unmet traveller-site need and the children’s welfare outweighed localised countryside harm and limited accessibility.

“The development would result in some localised harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. This harm is afforded moderate weight.”

“With regards, to criteria (ii), as set out above, regard is had to the policies of the Framework which are stated as being particular importance, and it is concluded that the adverse impacts of granting permission, namely the visual impact and the site not being within safe reasonable walking distance of services, facilities and public transport, would not clearly outweigh the benefits, namely the provision of traveller sites in the context of a lack of supply within the…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, while highways and environmental officers raised no objection; the biodiversity officer supported approval subject to conditions.

“Highways Officer – no objection. The Highway officer has stated that the site is well located in relation to the highway network and makes use of an established gated access on coalpit Lane set back into the site which benefits from satisfactory visibility splays on account of the wide grass verge and straight road.”

“Biodiversity Officer – no objection subject to conditions regarding bat enhancement, landscaping plan, precautionary working method for great crested newts, retention of landscaping and lighting.”

Officer report

Objections raised

Residents objected over infrastructure, landscape, Green Belt, highway safety, biodiversity, drainage, utilities, commercial use and the development having already started.

“The surrounding Saughall and Mollington wards to not have the infrastructure to support this development and the development would impact local healthcare, education and refuse collection. • This site is the 3 rd application within or in 500 yards of the Mollington Parish boundary in 2025. • The development is not located near to local services and facilities. • The development has already started without the benefit of planning permission.”

“The development causes visual and landscape harm. • The development harms the character and appearance of the area and countryside. • The development is inappropriate in the Green Belt. • The application site does not constitute previously developed land. • The development is detrimental to highway safety, with particular concerns regarding the junction with Parkgate Road.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a parish councillor representing Saughall and Shotwick Parish Council, and the ward councillor spoke about the application.

Why it was deferred

The committee deferred the application to obtain further information about drainage and boundary width.

“A proposal to defer the application, requiring further information regarding drainage and boundary width was accepted with 7 votes in favour and three against. DECIDED: That the application be deferred.”

Minutes