Council's 'No' to Mill Lane housing plan

The Mill Lane application by Hockenhull Developments was considered yesterday morning by Cheshire East's Strategic Planning Board and turned down with ten councillors voting against and two abstaining.

Frank Hockenhull spoke at the meeting in favour of the plan to build 36 properties to the north and south of Mill Lane with access at 22 Heathfield Road at the junction where it meets Hillary Drive.

The planners briefed councillors saying many issues were common with the earlier Gladman application at Little Heath. They recommended refusal on three grounds; that it is unsustainable because of the existing adequacy of housing supply as well as the site being in open countryside; that Mill Lane is not suitable for further development and that insufficient information on bats had been submitted by the developers.

Audlem Parish Council

Cllr Heather Jones, vice chair of the PC, spoke pointing out the site was outside the settlement boundary and that it would impact adversely by dominating the conservation area of Salford.

Other key issues were the sewers, impact on the medical practice, and lack of local employment and Superfast Broadband. The theory of the developers that Hillary Drive, rather than the very narrow Heathfield Road, would be used by traffic from the estate was seriously flawed. The developer had also used urban comparisons in his submission which would not apply in Audlem.

Heather spoke of the impact on Audlem Brook and protected species. A similar plan had been rejected by a planning inspector in 2003 and circumstances had not changed since then.

Neighbourhood Residents' Association

Stephen Amies spoke on behalf of 29 residents saying that the plan would irredeemably harm the Salford conservation area. The Association had carried out its own traffic surveys which showed a much higher usage of unsuitable roads.

He said residents on this new development would not use Hillary Drive but would use the shorter routes offered by the narrow Heathfield Road so affecting pedestrian safety and that it would be impossible to provide pavements without the compulsory purchase of residents' gardens.

David Latchford

David spoke as a resident and on behalf of other residents saying the plan contravened the Audlem Village Design Statement which supported infill. In 2003, the planning inspector had ruled this site would extend the settlement boundary into open countryside.

It would also affect the local street scene and that Cheshire East can now demonstrate it has a 5-year supply of houses. The national presumption in favour of development is still subject to sustainability. Pedestrian safety and the possibility of compulsory purchase to provide pavements would constitute hardship.

Frank Hockenhull

Frank Hockenhull, speaking in favour of the plan, said he spoke on behalf of HF Developments in which he had no financial interest. He said the plan was for only 36 houses of the right mix and the site was surrounded by houses on three sides and was therefore infill. He was giving 6 acres to Audlem as a community facility and that such opportunities come up rarely. He pointed out that when he sold his business, he gave the money to charity.

Councillors put a series of questions to him such as whether he had considered the impact on medical facilities. "No" he replied. Another councillor said the land he was proposing giving to the community was wet and only fit to be given away.

Cllr Rachel Bailey said that Heathfield Road was not ideal while other councillors on the site visit last week, horrified by its narrowness and lack of pavements, felt Heathfield Road was not safe whatever Highways' computers might say. Councillors called for a Safety Audit of the road and urged Highways to reconsider their submission.

The decision

A lengthy debate followed about whether the lack of medical facilities could be another ground for refusal. This was opposed by the council's solicitor on the somewhat pedantic grounds that the doctors had not given evidence in person on this specific point, but was supported by planners and councillors.

It therefore became a fourth ground for refusal which was approved by ten councillors with two abstaining.

The documents

The various documents that form part of the submission to the Cheshire East planners are being made available on the Parish Council part of the website as they become available. They can be found here.

This article is from our news archive. As a result pictures or videos originally associated with it may have been removed and some of the content may no longer be accurate or relevant.