Up to nine dwellings at Land Between Rudyard Road and Hot Lane, Biddulph Moor

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to nine dwellings, with detailed design and other technical matters reserved for a later stage.

“Determination of an application for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and amount of development. This is known as Stage 1 and, if approved, a Stage 2 application must follow. This is termed the technical details stage at which point such matters as design, ecology, and highways would be considered.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a level agricultural grassland strip in the Green Belt, outside but adjoining the Biddulph Moor village development boundary.

“The modern 20 th C cul-de-sac development of Parklands (within the development boundary) abuts the land on the westerly side. Similar development lines Rudyard Road opposite the site to its south. Opposite the site’s northerly or northwest boundary along Hot Lane is the Biddulph Moor village hall. This occupies a site outside of the Biddulph Moor development boundary. Adjacent north east of the village hall is a recreation ground and play area.”

“The southerly half of this site was reviewed as BM5 (one of seven sites at Biddulph Moor) in the Council's Green Belt review (additional sites) 2016. In terms of sprawl, separation, encroachment and setting (Green Belt purposes (a) to (d)) the review found a “limited contribution with no clear role” in any of those purposes.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for equestrian use, stables and an agricultural barn were refused, with the barn appeal dismissed.

“01/00401/FUL [SMD/2001/0855] Change of use of land from agricultural to equestrian and construction of 6 new stables (revised submission) – refused…”

“05/00637/FUL [SMD/2005/0764] Erection of agricultural barn – refused – dismissed at appeal…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council objected over Green Belt concerns, while highways and drainage consultees identified matters for future technical details.

“Biddulph Town Council – The development could potentially contravene a number of neighbourhood plan policies but the Council had grave concerns about infringement of the Green Belt. There is currently no grey belt policy in Staffordshire Moorlands so should be refused on these grounds.”

“Should the applicant receive planning ‘Permission in Principle’ for this proposal, United Utilities will review the drainage element of any application for Technical Details Consent in line with comments made above. It is likely at Technical Details stage that details of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme and a foul water drainage scheme would be required prior to the commencement of development.”

Officer report

Objections from residents

Forty representations raised concerns including Green Belt harm, flooding, highways, infrastructure, ecology, landscape, housing demand and insufficient detail.

“- harm to Green Belt - the land should not be considered grey belt - grey belt is not a statutory planning designation - alteration to Green Belt boundaries can only be done by Local Plan review - Green belt was put in place for a reason and should not be undermined - no very special circumstances - No compelling planning need - over-development - inadequate existing community infrastructure - Village facilities are limited - encroachment into the countryside - loss of…”

“- slow house sales suggest limited housing demand in Biddulph Moor - noise and disturbance from construction - Urban sprawl - Disruption of natural end point to the existing village - proximity to natural watercourse prone to swiftly rising spate conditions - Busy roads - New housing should be kept to infill which this isn't - Aviation safety as the land is used every so often for the take-off and landing of chartered helicopters - Traffic speeding between Biddulph and Leek…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident, another local resident and the ward councillor spoke against the application, while the agent spoke in support.

What members debated

Members wanted more detailed information and raised flooding, highways and the risk of further development; officers explained the later technical details stage.

“Some members expressed a preference to receive a full planning application containing more detailed information to inform their considerations. Concerns were also raised about potential flooding and highways, and it was thought that granting permission in principle could increase the risk of further development in the area.”

“Officers advised that any future grant of planning permission would require a Stage 2 Technical Details application.”

Minutes

The committee decision

The approval motion was lost and the application was refused contrary to the officers’ recommendation.

“A motion to approve the application was moved by Councillor Hoptroff and seconded by Councillor Johnson. On being put to the vote, the motion to approve the application was lost.”

“1) That contrary to officers’ recommendation the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:”

Minutes

Reasons for refusal

Members disagreed that the land was grey belt, treated the village as a large built-up area, and identified Green Belt, openness, policy and neighbourhood plan concerns.

“- Contrary to policies SS1, H1, T1, DC3, SD5 and SS10 of the Local Plan - Contrary to NPPF paragraphs 153-157 - Consideration to be given to the Biddulph Neighbourhood Plan - The Committee disagreed that the land was categorised as grey belt - That the village of Biddulph Moor was considered to be a large built-up area - The land had not previously been developed, and previous planning applications had been refused at this site.”

Minutes