New Planning Application For Skip Hire Business

There’s a new planning application (click here if you would like to see the original on Cheshire East’s Planning Portal). The location of the business is detailed in the plans below.


Skip Hire

Residents have started to register their objections to the application with one telling Love Goostrey that on a previous occasion when skips were regularly going through the area it resulted in a significant increase in lorries coming through the village and debris on the roads.

There are currently no contact details listed for J Barber who is the named applicant on the planning permission but if they would like to contact Love Goostrey with their comments then we will gladly update this post to include them.

To register a comment on this planning application then residents have until the 7th November 2019 and a target decision date is 26th November.

Application for wedding venue at Blackden Manor

Updated* The current version of the application now only includes the main Manor house and large glass extension with 3-bay garage.

Mr & Mrs Kershaw’s new application for their Grade ll listed Blackden Manor seeks to create a separate wedding venue with 10 bedrooms as well as a large extension to the main house.  (For info their other interests The Colony Group  includes luxurious office space/wedding venue etc near the airport)

Link to planning page for details: 19/2427C.  Comments are due by 5th Sept – to be decided by delegated authority rather than committee.

Wedding venue

The Grade ll manor house, to the east of the railway station, is currently being renovated/modernised.  This latest application points to the costs being offset by revenue generated from the creation of a separate wedding venue from the Grade ll cottage and adjacent farm building with glass extension:  “…The goal of the owners is to preserve the long term future of the estate but this cannot be at any cost. Consequently, the current proposals involve the renovation and extension of the listed farm building and East farm buildings to provide a wedding venue. This will then allow revue (sic) to be generated to fund the renovation of the ancillary buildings and fund the shortfall to the renovation and upkeep of the main house and surrounding estate.” Design & Access Statement 19/2427C.

The 2 outbuildings’ layouts suggest one for ceremonies and one for receptions (showing over 100 guests) and providing 10 bedrooms, although car parking doesn’t appear on the drawings.

Surely such a venture could lead to on-going noise and traffic issues locally, however no neighbours are being notified by CEC about the application!  Jodrell Bank Observatory are, of course, listed as a consultee.

Manor house extension

The Grade ll manor house is already a sizeable 7 bedroomed building but a very large glass extension is now proposed to the rear of the main house. “The current owners have acquired the estate with the intention of making it a family home. This involves extensive restoration to the existing buildings and estate in order to extend its life and make it suitable for use as a home to cater for the ongoing needs of their family and to ensure it reaches the standards expected of the size and stature of the house and estate.   …… extension is required to create a plan that works for the family…”

Recent alterations/renovations were approved on application 19/1324C.


Blackden manor proposed extension


Blackden Manor with proposed rear glass extension

CEC’s draft Site Allocations for Goostrey

The Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (SADPD) is part two of the Local Plan and identifies additional sites for development throughout Cheshire East.  It will be presented to the Strategic Planning Board at the end of August – followed by a six week public consultation from 11th Sept.  The revised version will have a second public consultation then goes to an Inspector for approval (probably) in 2019.  The housing figure for Goostrey is low due to its location in one of the most sensitive areas for radio interference for the Jodrell Bank Observatory.”

A Settlement Report  on Goostrey supports the overall are some extracted relevant points:    “…it is recommended that no sites should be allocated in the SADPD for development in Goostrey.”

2.1 Goostrey is a village with its own settlement boundary, set in the Open Countryside, as defined on the Proposals Map of the Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review, adopted in 2005. It is identified as a Local Service Centre (“LSC”) in the adopted Local Plan Strategy (“LPS”), and has a 2016 mid-year population estimate of 3,800 people.  [LG: yes we disagree with it being an LSC and all know that Goostrey village does not have 3800 residents !]

2.1 The focus for Goostrey over the LPS period is that of limiting any further impact, exacerbated by development, on the globally important work being carried out Jodrell Bank Observatory. It is also anticipated that Goostrey’s development needs will be largely provided for in Holmes Chapel (LPS ¶8.34).

Settlement Report Aug 2018.png

3.7  There were 8 housing completions (net) in Goostrey between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2017, and 0.00ha employment land take up. Commitments as at 31 March 2017 were 8 dwellings and 0.00ha of employment land.  A planning permission for 38 dwellings, granted by Cheshire West and Chester Council, does not technically count towards Cheshire East’s figures, however, in a practical sense the proposed development will also be part of Goostrey, and therefore should not be ignored in the context of considering the village’s growth.

3.8  Taking into account existing completions/take up and commitments, this leaves a remaining requirement for the provision of 0 dwellings and 0.00ha of employment land over the remaining Plan period.

4.7  Goostrey has small centre with limited services. However, it has representation from all of the respective retail and service sectors, which provides a key resource to local residents. There is a vacant unit that reduces the vitality of the centre, given the small number of overall units. Although Goostrey has a lower level of retail and service units than expected in a LSC, it is recognised that the centre provides an important role in catering for the day to day needs of the local community and as such support its designation as a local centre (“LC”).

To read the whole report click here – Goostrey Settlement Report.

It is certainly interesting to see the Allocations throughout all the Local Service Centres:Draft SADPD 2.2.png


Neighbourhood Plan referendum 17th August 2017

The Parish Council’s Neighbourhood Plan for Goostrey is now finished, approved by the Examiner, and will go to a public vote in a referendum on Thursday 17th August when Goostrey residents will be able to vote for it to be adopted.  If you will be away and can’t vote in person you can easily apply through the following links for a Postal Vote or a Proxy Vote  but must do so by 31st July.

We encourage everyone to vote “YES” for the Plan; designed to deliver the Vision via a set of Policies that reflect the views expressed by residents in the village questionnaire back in 2015 after the Parish Council first set up the Neighbourhood Plan Committee.

You can read the full plan – click on the link Goostrey Neighbourhood Plan  – which will only be adopted if more people vote ‘yes’ than ‘no’.

Paper copies are available for inspection from 3rd July in the Parish Office  (01477 535825).

All residents of Goostrey Parish on the Electoral Register will be able to vote – the question will be:

  • ‘Do you want Cheshire East Council to use the Neighbourhood Plan for Goostrey to help it decide Planning Applications in the Neighbourhood Area?’

Referendum is Thursday 17th August 2017.

A pictorial of Goostrey Vision and Policies

Gladman win Brereton/Holmes Chapel appeal

Planning permission has been granted at appeal for 190 homes in Brereton on the Holmes Chapel border; the emerging CEC Local Plan and Brereton’s Neighbourhood Plan being afforded only limited weight.

The Secretary of State concluded “that the sustainability of the appeal scheme along with the fact that the relevant policies for the supply of housing land in Cheshire East are out of date outweigh the fact that the NP [Neighbourhood Plan] has only relatively recently been made and the limited landscape and visual harm, and that the adverse impacts of the scheme do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.”

“It is clear that the Brereton community has put a considerable effort into preparing the NP, and it is appreciated that it would be frustrating for one of the key policies to be accorded reduced weight due to the lack of a five year housing land supply in the District – a matter over which the Parish has no control. But there is a significant national housing shortage and, if the LP [Local Plan] were delivering what national policy requires, the planning balance would have been different.”

read more: The Sec of State’s Decision

Developers could ride “roughshod” over councils’ local plan policies

Cheshire East is seeking to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling that found an inspector ‘made no error of law’ when allowing up to 170 homes on a site in Willaston that falls within the green gap.

CEC is seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal judgement which could see developers “riding roughshod” over councils’ local plan policies.

The Court of Appeal overturned a High Court judgement in favour of the Council and upheld a High Court judgement against Suffolk Coastal District Council regarding the weight, scope and force given to council planning policies.

The issue concerns Paragraph 49 of England’s National Planning Policy Framework which says housing supply policies should be considered out-of-date where councils cannot demonstrate “a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”.

Cheshire East challenged a planning inspector’s recommendation to allow Richborough Estates to build 146 houses at Moorfields in Willaston. Suffolk Coastal challenged High Court approval of Hopkins Homes‘ challenge to both the Council and an inspector’s rejection of 26 homes at Old High Road in Yoxford.

“We have thought about this long and hard and it is not something we do lightly,” said Cheshire East cabinet member for housing and planning Ainsley Arnold.

“However, this court decision is too important to be allowed to go unchallenged. It is clear to us it would have deeply detrimental implications for councils across the country and their powers to protect local communities from unplanned and unsustainable development.”

He said the Council aims to maintain the significance of local plans in determining applications even when a council cannot show it has the “five-year supply” developers demand.

Three Court of Appeal judges concluded the High Court had misinterpreted Paragraph 49.

“The policy in Paragraph 49 does not disapply, or “bypass”, an ‘out-of-date’ policy in a statutory development plan,” says the judgement.

“The effect of a relevant policy being found to be ‘out-of-date’ or not ‘up-to-date’ under Paragraph 49 is that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is to be applied as Paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides. As we have said… this does not mean that the policy in question is to be disregarded. It must still be given the weight it is due in all the circumstances of the case.”

They concluded there was nothing wrong with an inspector concluding a policy was out-of-date but still giving it appropriate weight in planning balance.

But he was still entitled to decide how much weight to give when applying the statutory “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.


Builders blame councils for slow building

The Home Builders Federation evidence to MPs says building will only reach Government targets if councils give consent to even more land and discharge conditions quicker.

The Home Builders’ Federation has blamed councils for builders only building a relatively low proportion of the sites for which they have planning consent – because they need even more planning consents and more agreement over discharge of conditions.

The Federation’s response to the Commons Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, puts blame on local authorities for the failure to build.  It says it is important to distinguish between land allocated in a development plan, with planning consent but with conditions to discharge, with “implementable planning permission” and currently under construction.

The HBF claims councils believe their delivery role stops with planning consent and says they should work more closely with developers to allocate sites and grant enough permissions to meet identified needs.  It agrees it is builders that actually build but councils should work to secure agreement over delivery trajectories.

“The current debate between local authorities, government and the development industry regarding build out rates fails to respect fluidity of sites moving through the development process,” it says.

“The allocation of sites and the granting of planning permissions is a reservoir from which development will flow. The number of completions per year is the rate of flow, not the size of the reservoir itself. Once a tap is fully open (in house building terms this is the equivalent of a site delivering houses at the maximum rate the market can sustain), the only way to increase the flow is to open more taps through granting more planning permissions. This may, temporarily, increase the size of the reservoir but, ultimately, if we are to increase output of housing we must plan positively for more housing.”

It says they will only meet Government building targets if the five-year land supply reaches one million dwellings.  The Federation supports brownfield registers and permission-in-principle and also the “brownfield presumption” which it says is not a return to brownfield-first.  It calls for brownfield tax breaks but says sites must be deliverable and developable to go on the registers.    BrownfieldBriefing