Cheshire East to challenge planning inspector

CHESHIRE East Council is to take legal action to try to overturn the decision of a planning inspector to grant permission for 200 homes on farmland on the edge of Congleton.

It is pushing ahead with the action despite being told by a barrister that the chances of a successful appeal are “remote”.

Instead it is pinning its hopes on wider arguments on government policy that are already being used by a local authority in Gloucestershire.

A council document, published ahead of a cabinet meeting on October 15, states: “Legal opinion has been obtained from the barrister who represented the council at the appeal and her opinion is that on planning grounds the chances of a successful appeal are remote.

“However, Tewkesbury Council is appealing against an inspector’s decision made on similar grounds and is using wider arguments based upon extensive change of Government policy as being contrary to published policy on localism.”

It adds: “The barrister representing Tewkesbury Council, from the same chambers as the barrister who represented the council at the Loachbrook Farm Inquiry, has indicated he could mount similar arguments if Cheshire East chooses to challenge the Loachbrook decision on this basis.”

Last year the council refused an application by the Dale family for the development at Loachbrook Farm, but a planning inspector later backed the plans for 42 acres off Sandbach Road, Congleton.

The council said it posed a threat to the landscape, was an unsustainable development and that more suitable sites were available elsewhere. The inspector insisted it should go ahead because the authority needed more homes.

In a statement Cheshire East leader Michael Jones said: “Our towns and villages are under siege from an unprecedented onslaught of unplanned development proposals. As an authority we are also saddled with unrealistic housing targets from an unaccountable regional planning system. Cheshire East Council recognises this legal action will cost money – but I believe we have no choice but to challenge this ruling.

“When an inspector supports the heart of the Council’s case and acknowledges that the proposal would locally harm the character and appearance of this area of countryside, contrary to the development plan, but then says ‘this is outweighed by the need to secure a five-year supply of deliverable housing land’ – I find this perverse.”