Developments in the village:

Developers refused the application on the Parkside site yet again:

For the third time in 7 years, an application (22/4203N) has been refused. This was an unusual application that was supported by the Planning Officers and therefore significantly raised the stakes. The unusual nature of the application was that it was presented as an ‘exceptional site’ under a new Government scheme to promote first-time house purchases – hence the scheme title ‘First Home’.

The developers argued that under the scheme the ‘exceptional’ rules attached to this new scheme would allow it to sit outside the settlement boundary for Bunbury in open country. Further, they could put 25 homes on the site as the Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan, with its restriction of 15 homes as the maximum acceptable number on anyone site also did not apply. This produced an application that gave no details of the design of the dwellings to be built, which conflicted with a number of existing Policies from Cheshire East and our Neighbourhood Plan. Despite this serious multitude of failings, it was recommended for consent a the planning committee last Wednesday.

It failed. And it did so as a result of those conflicts with planning policies and the excellent presentation given by the Bunbury Parish Council (Andrew Thompson – Vice Chair of the PC) and Isabel Noonan on behalf of local residents.

This was a long session for a planning application before the committee of nearly one and a half hours. The Planning Officers were clearly committed to the need for such a site and had selected Bunbury as a test case for Chesire East. While it failed, it was clear that this was just the start. A number of points against the application could be dealt with in subsequent applications:

Reduce the number of dwellings to 15

Provide clear design information for the site and the houses

Have available a up-to-date ‘Housing Needs Survey’ that actually has evidence to support the construction of such a site

Provide a better social mix of housing to avoid grouping new homeowners on one large site.

There were other issues relating to the relationship between new government initiatives and existing Local Plans that need resolving at a ministerial level. These may take some time, and we may have a change of government meanwhile, but the challenge to build on greenfield sites around Bunbury is very likely to continue

Planners ready to say ‘yes’ to another greenfield development in Bunbury

Update on Parkside ‘First Homes’ application

Cheshire East is recommending the approval of the application for up to 25 First Homes on a greenfield site at Parkside off Bunbury Lane.

Update June 21

• This development is contrary to Cheshire East’s own Local Plan
• This development is contrary to the Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan
• There were over 130 local people, including you, who objected online to this proposed development in December 2022.

Many residents have written to our local representatives, MP Edward Timpson and Cheshire East to express their anger and strong opposition to this application.

Despite this, Cheshire East is set to recommend that it is allowed to go ahead.

Now our only course of action is for as many local residents as possible to attend the Planning Committee in person.

We need your support

Please join us at the Planning Committee on 28 June to show the Council our strength of feeling against this development.

10am Wednesday 28 June 2023

Council Chamber, Municipal Buildings,

Earle Street, Crewe, CW1 2BJ

Thank you for your support – Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

For more information – Andrew Thomson – 07884316105, andrew@thomsonplanning.net or

Isabel Noonan – 07973917518, imnoonan3@gmail.com or https://bunburyvillage.info

Original post on this issue:

Planning Application – Ref:22/4203N – Parkside, Bunbury Lane, Bunbury, CW6 9QZ

• This development is contrary to Cheshire East’s own Local Plan
• This development is contrary to the Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan
• There were over 130 local people, including you, who objected online to this proposed development in December 2022.

Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group feel strongly that the Cheshire East Planning Committee members have not been fully informed about the reasons why this application should be refused.

The application was due to go to the Cheshire East Southern Planning Committee on 31 May but this was cancelled. A new date has yet to be announced but it is likely to be before the end of June.

If this application is approved, it would set a serious precedent across the whole of Cheshire East for First Homes in open countryside outside settlement boundaries. This recommendation undermines the entire principle of neighbourhood planning and goes against the very clear advice in Government guidance.

The formal objection process is closed, but we are asking you to e-mail (include your address) as a matter of urgency your opposition once again to:

Case Officer – Gareth.Taylerson@cheshireeast.gov.uk

Ward Councillor – becky.posnett@cheshireeast.gov.uk

Your MP – edward.timpson.mp@parliament.uk

These are the reasons why we are objecting. You can use these in your e-mails:

• The Council report does not take into account the planning history on this site – two previous applications refused and two previous Appeals dismissed, one less than a year ago. The recent Appeal decision is not drawn to members’ attention in the Committee report – why is this?

• The Council report does not state that the application site is in open countryside and is protected by policy PG6 of the Cheshire East Local Plan. The description of the site as ‘predominantly residential’ by officers in the report is not correct – there is frontage development onto Bunbury Lane but the site is almost entirely open countryside, outside the settlement boundary

• Cheshire East Council accepts that the proposal is contrary to the Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan as the number of dwellings would exceed the agreed threshold of 15 houses on any one site (policy H2). It would also be co-located with another consented development (policy H2). The Council accepts harm would be done through co-location and a higher concentration of properties in this part of the village. Nevertheless, they still recommend approval, undermining the Neighbourhood Plan process and local democracy.

• The policies in the Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan limiting the size of developments to a maximum of 15 and the co-location policy have already been supported by Cheshire East in previous planning applications and appeals in Bunbury.

• Bunbury has already delivered 108 houses built or approved in the past 12 years, including affordable houses. This is well over the minimum of 80 stated in the Neighbourhood Plan.

• The report argues that the Government’s new First Homes policy comes into play. This is not correct. The First Homes requirement does not apply the Neighbourhood Plans made before 28 December 2021 as Bunbury’s was. The First Homes initiative does not apply in Bunbury as we have a made Neighbourhood Plan.

• There appears to have been recent negotiation between Cheshire East and the applicant to reduce the number of houses from the original 25 proposed to 20. There is no public record of correspondence on the application web site between the applicant and the planners. Where is the transparency on decision making with this application?

• Cheshire East is arguing that the proposed development is suitable as a First Homes exception site. The applicant has provided no housing needs survey to justify the use of this greenfield site in this way. The definition is that exception sites should be close to employment, services and facilities. It is likely, as noted by the Appeal dismissal (April 2022) ‘that most occupiers of these additional homes would have to travel outside the area by car to access the majority of these facilities’. Bunbury has very limited bus services and employment opportunities.

PLEASE WRITE e-mails as suggested overleaf and please tell your neighbours about the situation. As you have already objected to this application, we will let you know the new date for the hearing of this application. To show the strength of local opinion against this application we are asking as many people as possible to attend the meeting at Crewe Council Chamber. Please join us if you can

Thank you for your support – Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

For more information – Andrew Thomson – 07884316105, andrew@thomsonplanning.net or

Isabel Noonan – 07973917518, imnoonan3@gmail.com

greenfield development in Bunbury

What happened in the field next to Oak Gardens and why it matters

Why was a protected woodland damaged and its associated buffer zone removed despite clear guidance from Cheshire East Officers to protect it, the HMI who noted the same, the Parish Council who sought respect for the Neighbourhood Plan, and numerous residents who demanded that the protection be established.?

From the start, the issue was clear. The Neighbourhood Plan puts the position clearly

..a ‘Bunbury Wildlife Corridor’ which follows the route of the River Gowy and its tributaries. We recommend that the corridor is identified in the Neighbourhood Plan and is protected from development.

…we suggest that an adjacent non–developable buffer zone is identified. The buffer may be in the region of 15 metres in order to fully protect high value habitats. Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan 2016 page 32 – Biodiverity Project)

It was identified in the plan but was not protected.

Cheshire East Officers were also well aware of the situation when reviewing the initial plan:

James Baggaley, Principal Nature Conservation Officer 2016, wrote:

The Woodland on the site…. appears on the national inventory of Priority Woodland habitats. Habitats of this type are a material consideration. The Woodland edge extends into the site beyond the existing fence line boundary. I note that the revised layout plan shows a retained area of Woodland excluded from the gardens of the proposed development. This area does not, however, extend to the full extent of the tree canopies of the adjacent woodland trees and so in my opinion, is unlikely to be adequate to maintain the edge habitats of the adjacent Woodland. I recommend that the submitted illustrative layout plan be amended to show an area of standoff from the adjacent Woodland.

Chris Hudson Environmental Planning Officer in response to the application in 2016, makes much the same point:

‘..the indicative design (see below) and position of certain plots are dictated by the position of the access and that the potential loss of protected Woodland to domestic  garden has not been adequately addressed in the submission. 

In response to these points, the developer proposed the following site layout (below) The top of the site is north, and you can see a buffer zone (of variable width) between the gardens along the western edge and the woodland. The red and black ‘blobs’ are ecological mitigation’ features added reduce the damage to wildlife.

Cheshire East Officers were also well aware of the situation when reviewing the initial plan:

In his report, the HMI who gave consent makes this comment in paragraph 26:

I understand that the application site falls within an indicative wildlife corridor as shown in the NP. The NP recommends a 15m non-developable buffer zone adjacent to the wildlife corridor. The Council has acknowledged that this appears to have been achieved in the indicative layout (above)and I have no reason to find otherwise.

Appeal Decision APP/R0660/W/16/3165643

However, the Inspector did not make this protection scheme a condition of the consent. Such details were best settled at the ‘Reserves Matters’ phase of the application once outline permission was granted. Was this the turning point when the damage to the woodland became possible?

The full history is too complex to go into in detail. There were further refusals of applications and a couple of withdrawn applications. We can see the Woodland starts to come under pressure from the comment made by the Principle Landscape Architect – James Gomulski in application 18/6338N:

The Revised Indicative Layout drawing provided a 15m non-developable buffer zone, as recommended in the Neighbourhood Plan. Not only has this buffer been reduced, but appears to be an informal extension of the rear gardens. 

You can see this in the next site plan:

Note that the buffer zone has gone. But all the trees are shown as present. However, after the first deadline on application 19/5534N had expired (25/12/2019) , it was extended and a series of new documents were listed on the planning website. Thiese included

a new tree survey (a previous one was included in the initial application) that now identified the Large Ash tree as needing to be removed ‘…to provide working space for external works .’ because of ‘…Minor ingress within the outer section of the root protection area.’

(ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND METHOD STATEMENT Revised March 2020)

Just to make it clear, the last landscape plan (above) is listed (15/04/2020) after the documents identified significant changes to that landscape on 1/04/2020. What was intended was this:

The red circle highlights the ash tree 14T and the fallen oak 6T canopies, and the black circles the root protection area.. Other tree canopies are shown in green. Note that tree 6T fell over in a storm and was therefore removed by natural forces.

The Woodland on the site…. appears on the national inventory of Priority Woodland habitats. Habitats of this type are a material consideration. The Woodland edge extends into the site beyond the existing fence line boundary. I note that the revised layout plan shows a retained area of Woodland excluded from the gardens of the proposed development. This area does not, however, extend to the full extent of the tree canopies of the adjacent woodland trees and so in my opinion, is unlikely to be adequate to maintain the edge habitats of the adjacent Woodland. I recommend that the submitted illustrative layout plan be amended to show an area of standoff from the adjacent Woodland.

The reserved matters process had seen the elimination of the buffer zone and cutting back of the Protect Woodland. We might have expected the CE officers to protect the woodland and associated trees. That did not happen, and the consequences can be seen by anyone walking around the field and in the above photo.

The development was allowed to creep into the buffer zone, as can be seen in the final layout provided by the developers. Healthy trees are cut down and cut back to ensure the houses along the western edges are not in their shade. At the start, the argument ran in the opposite direction, keeping the houses back so the woodland and wildlife are protected and left relatively undisturbed. Why the change?