Heathfield planning battle lost

Cheshire East's Strategic Planning Board yesterday afternoon voted to approve the third application by Frank Hockenhull's companies to build on the land behind 22 Heathfield Road to the extreme disappointment of the Audlem representatives present.

The vote was in the balance throughout a lengthy debate that went on for almost two hours. Parish councillors Geoff Seddon and Heather Jones spoke robustly against the development and answered questions as did Heathfield residents Stephen Amies and Shaughna Warburton.

Councillors on the Planning Board – who had turned down* unanimously two previous applications by Hockenhull (the company name was Hockenhull Properties Ltd this time rather than Hockenhull Developments on the previous attempts) – were clearly frustrated by the position they were in because of the failure to establish a 5-Year Housing Supply within the Local Plan.

As a result, Cheshire East Planners recommended councillors should agree to the application, saying: "It is acknowledged that the Council is unable to robustly demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and that, accordingly, in the light of the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, it should favourably consider suitable planning applications for housing that can demonstrate that they meet the definition of sustainable development.

"There is an environmental impact in the locality due to the loss of open countryside and agricultural land. However, the proposal will not have a significant impact on the landscape character of the area and will represent a partial rounding off of the settlement without resulting in an unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside."

Some councillors argued strongly against this advice by planning officers, one even referring to "the rape of South Cheshire's villages" and another saying "we shouldn't build in Audlem to protect Wilmslow and the north of the Borough."

For a time those opposing this development seemed the more vocal in the debate.

Two votes were taken, the first proposed by local councillor Rachel Bailey arguing for rejection saying the location and condition of the land, access and road were unchanged from the two previous refusals.

That vote was lost with four councillors voting for refusal but six opposing that view and presumably two abstentions.

A second vote in favour of the development was then taken with this time six in favour, five against and one councillor still unable to express an opinion by voting one way or the other or simply could not make up their mind.

More on this tomorrow with details of the arguments put forward both for and against this controversial development and possible Section 106 payments that might be made by the developer now he has got his way after more than a decade of trying.

It is now likely that the Appeal on the second application, which was to have been heard in January, will not take place.

*To be strictly correct, the second refusal was by the Cheshire East Southern Planning Board. The first was by the Strategic Planning Board.

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.