Link to Appeal decision in full: Appeals page ref 3166025 .
Link to planning application that was originally refused: 16/4306C . However there are two other planning applications to be decided by Cheshire East – for 1 to 3 houses on the original footprint: 17/0680c and 17/4451c.
- The appeal proposal would provide 6 new homes on a site which I consider, subject to the imposition of conditions, to be acceptable in design terms and would be appropriately located in relation to transport links and proximity to the village and its services. As such, I have accorded this moderate weight in favour of the development. I have also attached moderate weight to the benefits to be derived from the construction of modest developments by local builders through the provision of small sites, and limited weight to affordable housing provision. However, I have found, on the basis of the uncontested evidence of Professor Garrington, that the proposed development would breach saved Policy PS10 of the LP, Policy SE 14 of the CELP and Policy SC2 of the NP which require that where the efficiency of the telescopes are impaired that development will not be permitted. From the evidence before me, including consideration of the global significance of Jodrell Bank as a scientific research resource, I accord this breach of policy significant weight.
- Moreover, the proposed development would also be contrary to Policy HOU1 of the NP. This supports new housing in principle within and adjacent to the settlement boundary of Goostrey, where it does not individually or cumulatively harm the operation of the JBRTs. Similarly, from the evidence before me I accord this breach significant weight. I must also take into account paragraph 198 of the Framework which states where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permissions should not normally be granted. Extract from Appeal decision 18th Jan 2018