Agenda item

20/4976M-Proposed development of a Retirement Care Community (Class C2) involving the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings, retained single point of vehicular access, retained tennis court, fishing/boating lake, Japanese Water Garden, secret/sensory garden, with new allotments, bowling/feature greenspace and woodland walks; construction of a 60 bed registered care home with isolation capability; 72 no. assisted living extra care 1, 2 and 3 bed apartments; a village centre hub building comprising health and wellness and communal facilities, integrated satellite community healthcare (GP) clinic and 5 no. 2 bed and 9 no. 1 bed close care suites and health and wellness; associated parking (including electric car share and community minibus), bin storage, pumping station, electricity sub-station, means of access and off-site pedestrian footpath link along Pepper Street, highway improvements and biodiversity net gain, Holly Tree House, Pepper Street, Chelford, Macclesfield for Mr

To consider the above application.


Consideration was given to the above application.


(Parish Councillor Nick Speakman, representing Ollerton with Marthall Parish Council and Justin Paul, the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and spoke in respect of the application).




That the application be refused for the following reasons:-


1.     The proposed development would represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Furthermore, additional harm would be created to the Green Belt by virtue of loss of openness and encroachment. It is not deemed that Very Special Circumstances exist that are sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other harm identified. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy PG3 (Green Belt) of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, saved Policy GC1 (Green Belt (New Buildings)) of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.


2.     The proposed development would be located outside of a settlement boundary, in an unsustainable location. In addition, the development would lead to a concentration of specialist care facilities resulting in an imbalance of residential uses in the area and would conflict with other relevant policies of the development plan. The development is therefore deemed contrary to Policies SC4 (Residential Mix), SD2 (Sustainable Development Principles), CO1 (Sustainable Travel and Transport), EG2 (Rural Economy) and the strategic aims of Policy PG2 (Settlement Hierarchy) of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy and saved Policy DC57 (Community Uses – Residential Institutions) of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan.


3.     The proposed development would have a significant adverse impact upon roostingbats and Great Crested Newts, protected and priority species.   The reasons for or benefits of the proposed development do not outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposed development upon these species and so the proposals are contrary to Policy SE3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy and saved Policy NE11 (Nature Conservation) of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan. As bats and Great Crested Newts receive protection under the Habitats Regulations, the Council must have due regard to the regulations during the determination of the application.  In order to discharge its duties under the regulations the Council must consider whether Natural England would be likely to grant a protected species licence to allow the development to proceed.  In this instance, the Council considers that the proposed development is not of imperative overriding public interest and there are suitable alternatives to the current proposals with a reduced impact upon bats and Great Crested Newts. The application therefore fails to comply with the licensing tests in the habitat regulations. Natural England would consequently be unlikely to grant a protected species license in this instance.


In order to give proper effect to the Strategic Planning Board’s intent and without changing the substance of its decision, authority is delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice Chair) to correct any technical slip or omission in the resolution, before issue of the decision notice.


(It was noted that Councillor B Murphy abstained from voting on the application).


Supporting documents: