Full public inquiry: Appeal for 6 houses at 51/61 Main Rd

The Appeal for 6 more houses behind the two under construction on Main Road was to be an informal ‘around a table’ hearing, however the Planning Inspector has now changed it to a full Public Inquiry.   Statements and Interested Parties comments are now due by 25th April.

Henderson Homes were refused permission in Oct 2016, ref 16/4306C , because it would impair the efficiency of JBO.  It is interesting to note that the field in question is next to the site that Gladman appealed (and lost) last year; the Secretary of State agreeing with the Planning Inspector in his decision “that the protection of Jodrell Bank Observatory as a facility of international importance transcends the housing land supply circumstances of the case. The Secretary of State therefore attaches considerable weight to Policy PS10.”

Link to the Appeals page ref 3166025 (to read the appellant’s statement of case click on Documents).  

There is currently an application 17/0680 for just one more house behind the two nearing completion – on the same footprint as one of the six – with a decision target date of 6th April. (Should this be deferred until after the Appeal?) 

Henderson Homes Appeal Inquiry site

Gladman site in red above Henderson Homes appeal site

Sept 2016: 16/4306C refused

Sept 2016: 16/4306C refused

Background:

In Oct 2016 JBO opposed the application for 6 houses on the site, “In the case of the proposal 16/4306C , we oppose this development. Our view is that the impact from the additional potential contribution to the existing level of interference coming from that direction will be relatively minor. This is a general direction in which there is already significant development close to the telescope. We note that this application is one of a series that Emery Planning Partnership has made for this site….”

15/3131C  for 7 dwellings: JBO opposed and was refused Oct 2015.

15/5517C  for 2 dwellings: JBO opposed but was approved Feb 2016.

16/4306C for 6 dwellings: JBO opposed and was refused Oct 2016.

17/0680N, for 1 dwelling: JBO opposing 23/2/17.

“Jodrell Bank Observatory now opposes development across a significant part of the consultation zone as a matter of principle, in order to protect the efficiency of the Jodrell Bank radio telescope’s ability to receive radio emissions from space with a minimum of interference from electrical equipment.”

Appeal ref: 3166025

Police in Holmes Chapel appeal for information

Police are appealing for witnesses after an elderly man died following a fail-to-stop collision in Holmes Chapel at 6.30pm on Friday 17 March.  Anyone with any information is urged to call 101 quoting incident number 735 of 17 March.

Cheshire Police received reports of an elderly man with serious injuries in London Road outside the library.

Emergency services attended the scene and the 77-year-old man was taken to North Staffordshire Hospital. Despite the best efforts of all involved he sadly died a short time later.

Continue reading

Cheshire East ‘no longer supportive’ of applications

Cheshire East Council specify that Goostrey parish is part of a Local Service Centre with a requirement to provide around 27* new homes.

But since the appeal for a development of 119 houses (and presumably all the evidence that JBO put forward in regard to the cumulative impact from housing) CEC are now giving signifiant weight to the potential impact on our iconic neighbour Jodrell Bank Observatory.

CEC Planning Officer Nick Hulland Oct 2016 in response to Emery Planning re the current appeal for 6 homes, “As such, the Council are no longer supportive of any residential applications, in particular within the closest Parishes, such as (but not exclusive to) – Twemlow, Goostrey, Cranage and the edge of Holmes Chapel due to the ‘cumulative impact of new development on the efficient operation of Jodrell Bank’.

Therefore, because the Council are now attributing significant weight to the impact upon Jodrell Bank, even if ‘relatively minor’ as advised by JBO, it will nonetheless have an impact to the extent that it would ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweigh the benefits of the vast majority of the residential schemes being considered by the Council.

Historically, when such a response has been received from JBO, the Council have still considered that on balance, the benefit of the new housing has outweighed the impact upon the telescope. However, the cumulative impact of the granting of new residential developments in recent years within these areas has now ‘tipped the balance’ as part of our planning assessments to the extent that all new residential development in these areas close to Jodrell Bank are considered to weigh heavily against the scheme in the planning balance.”

This dichotomy must be somewhat confusing for developers/planning consultants and no doubt clarification would benefit all, including Goostrey Parish Council, and especially JBO; Policy SC2 in the draft Neighbourhood Plan clearly states ‘Development should not be permitted where JBO determines that the efficiency of the radio telescopes would be impaired.’

Previously, in Feb 2016, CEC approved 2 houses on the site by 51 Main Road, despite JBO’s opposition. However, since then the Secretary of State agreed with the Planning Inspector after the appeal for 119 houses that JBO “as an established world class facility should be afforded reasonable protection”.  He considered that the Council’s housing land supply shortfall was “ largely a local issue, while Jodrell Bank Observatory is a facility of international importance such that its protection from the identified harm transcends the current housing land supply circumstances.”

– JBO are currently objecting to just one additional dwelling (in addition to the two built) on the site of the forthcoming appeal for six.  Albeit JBO prefer to comment on the degree of impact on a case-by-case basis it is hard to see where a further 27 dwellings would be acceptable – unless locations can be found for additional housing where the topography and existing development can be proven to provide sufficient screening. It is therefore likely that the remaining 27 houses in Goostrey may be just developments of single houses further away from the telescope and in any natural valleys.

 * “the construction of around 50 new homes will be supported…..23 new dwellings have already been committed towards the 50” Policy HOU1 page 20/22 draft Goostrey NP.

…………………………………………………………………..

Martin de Kretser | March 7 2017 

Looks like Emery Planning are pinning their hopes on the fact that this further development does not pose a ‘significant’ increase in interference on Jodrell Bank, which is similar to the argument used at the Twemlow Appeal a few years ago. However as concluded in the Gladman appeal, the judgement made in the Twemlow Appeal was found to be incorrect, and in effect, any increase over the international agreed standards for radio interference was not sustainable. Emery Planning also state JBO are blocking all development in the village, this is also incorrect, as there have been a number of developments in recent years that JBO have not objected to and just requested screening measures. However , It looks as though that recent development in the surrounding area has now reached ‘saturation point’, hence Cheshire East’s revised stance.

Goostrey Neighbourhood Plan consultation Mar6-Apr17

Cheshire East has now started the formal consultation for the Goostrey N’hood Plan (GNP) for residents to make their comments up to 17th April;  the Plan is then sent to an Independent Examiner prior to the final referendum.

Link through to the GNP’s website to read the documents.

To comment: link to the Cheshire East GNP page; scroll down to Regulation 16 “Consultation”.

Goostrey parish

Appeal for 6 houses in Goostrey

At the same time as an application for just one house behind the two nearing completion by 51 Main Road (opposite Mt Pleasant park) developers Henderson Homes (through planning consultants Emery Partnership) are appealing the decision to refuse 6 houses on the site.  The refusal was “because it would impair the efficiency of the Jodrell Bank Telescope”.

Sept 2016: 16/4306C refused

Sept 2016: 16/4306C refused

Link to the appellant’s Statement of Case.  Statements and Interested Parties comments for the ‘informal hearing‘ are due by 3rd April 2017.

In Oct 2016 JBO opposed the application for 6 houses on the site, “In the case of the proposal 16/4306C , we oppose this development. Our view is that the impact from the additional potential contribution to the existing level of interference coming from that direction will be relatively minor. This is a general direction in which there is already significant development close to the telescope. We note that this application is one of a series that Emery Planning Partnership has made for this site….”

15/3131C  for 7 dwellings: JBO opposed and was refused Oct 2015.

15/5517C  for 2 dwellings: JBO opposed but was approved Feb 2016.

16/4306C for 6 dwellings: JBO opposed and was refused Oct 2016.

17/0680N, for 1 dwelling: JBO opposing 23/2/17.

“Jodrell Bank Observatory now opposes development across a significant part of the consultation zone as a matter of principle, in order to protect the efficiency of the Jodrell Bank radio telescope’s ability to receive radio emissions from space with a minimum of interference from electrical equipment.”

Appeal ref: 3166025   An informal hearing takes the form of a round-the-table discussion that will be led by the planning inspector. It is intended to be an informal process and allows for all parties to respond to any questions that the inspector might have, and to let everyone make their case known.

Third parties, such as local residents, councillors and amenity groups may also attend and take part in the discussion.

The majority of hearings will take no longer than a day and usually conclude with a site visit.  Sometimes, more complex proposals may take several days to discuss.  A written decision is usually made several weeks after the hearing.  Planning Portal.

.13/4266C  for 3 dwellings: JBO did not oppose but required screening measures. Aug 2014