Saltersford recommended for refusal

The 14/0132C Saltersford Corner proposal has been recommended for refusal by the planning officer – and will be heard by the Strategic Planning Board next Wednesday 28th May 2014.  The recommendation for refusal is based on:

1. The proposed residential development is unsustainable because it is located within the Open Countryside, contrary to Policy PS8 of the Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review 2005, Policy PG5 of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy – Submission Version and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to ensure development is directed to the right location and open countryside is protected from inappropriate development and maintained for future generations enjoyment and use.   As such it and creates harm to interests of acknowledged importance.   The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and consequently, there are no material circumstances to indicate that permission should be granted contrary to the development plan, to the emerging Development Strategy and the principles of the National Planning Policy since there are no material circumstances to indicate that permission should be granted contrary to the development plan.

2. The proposal would result in loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and given that the Authority can demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of 5 years, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a need for the development, which could not be accommodated elsewhere. The use of the best and most versatile agricultural land is inefficient and contrary to Policy SE2 of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy – Submission Version and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

One thought on “Saltersford recommended for refusal

  1. These are exactly the same issues which would be the grounds for refusal for Mount Pleasant and Hermitage Lane. The only difference is that Jodrell Bank were happy with screening measures at Saltersford Corner. However for Hermitage Lane even with screening measures they calculated the acceptable threshold for radio interference would still be exceeded by a factor of 10. Mount Pleasant is even nearer to Jodrell Bank, so I would have thought this is even more of a concern ….We await formal comments from Jodrell Bank on both applications…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s