A Cheshire East planning officer who will be a council witness at a public inquiry when it fights plans for 225 homes on a wildlife site has stated he thinks planning permission should be granted.

The council's planning officers had last year recommended the controversial application to build the homes on land east of Longridge at Knutsford be approved, despite acknowledging it would also result in inappropriate development in the green belt.

This is because a proportion of the application site extends beyond the land allocated for development in Cheshire East's local plan.

The council's strategic planning board went against the officers' recommendations and unanimously refused the application in December last year.

Applicant Dewscope appealed the decision, and the public inquiry is due to start next week.

Documents due to be considered by the planning inspector have now been posted on the council's website.

This includes the proof of evidence from Cheshire East planning officer Adrian Crowther.

He was not the planning officer at the December meeting but says, in his written statement, he had listened to the recording of the meeting.

Mr Crowther states: "The officers' report to the council's strategic planning board … recommended the approval of the application.

"I make it clear at the outset that I agree with that recommendation and also consider that planning permission should be granted, subject to the imposition of appropriately worded conditions and a planning obligation which secures necessary contributions.

"However, I have been asked to write this proof of evidence to articulate and explain why members of the strategic planning board resolved to refuse the application, contrary to officer recommendation."

In his 27-page statement, Mr Crowther then lists the planning officers' and the councillors' differing views.

In the conclusion, he states: "As set out [in his statement], the proposals would make a significant contribution to meeting local housing needs; affordable housing; open space provision and management; biodiversity net gain; economic and social benefits.

"I agree with the weight afforded to the relative harms and benefits, as set out in the report.

"I have also made clear I agree with the recommendation made in the officer's report.

"However, members concluded that when the effects of the proposals are considered in the round, including the harm to the green belt, loss of protected open space, effective loss of a LWS (local wildlife site) and the failure of the scheme to properly integrate into the Longridge Estate, the harm was not clearly outweighed by the benefits.

"Accordingly, members reached the conclusion that the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan and national planning policy and that there are no material considerations that justify the grant of planning permission.

"In light of members' decision in this matter, it is the council's position that the appeal should be dismissed."

John Finnan, of Save Longridge Greenbelt, said he asked the council in the summer what the position would be regarding it defending the appeal as its own officers had recommended it for approval.

He received an email stating: "I can assure you that we will be defending the reasons for refusal as strongly as we are able."

Mr Finnan said this week: "So, what Mr Crowther is now saying is deeply worrying and disappointing."

Would you like to know more about Sandbach?

Free from clickbait, pop-up ads and unwanted surveys, Sandbach Nub News is a quality online newspaper for our town.

Please consider following Sandbach Nub News on Facebook  or Twitter