Cheshire East has granted 'permission in principle' for a larger housing scheme than one previously refused on a Wheelock site because the council no longer has a five-year housing land supply.

The council refused CB homes permission for two houses on the land off Mill Lane two years ago, on the grounds of inappropriate development in the open countryside and the size of the residential plots would be out of keeping with surrounding properties.

The developer has since applied for 'permission in principle' to build eight properties on the same site.

The council's planners recommended approval, and the application was called-in by ward councillor Laura Crane (Lab) and considered at Wednesday's meeting of the southern planning committee.

Cllr Crane was unable to attend the meeting but, in a statement read out on her behalf, she said: "If two houses were inappropriate development, then eight houses most certainly should be."

And she asked: "What changed within our planning policies that justifies a completely different stance with regard to development on the same patch of land as two years ago?

"Do we not open ourselves up to the risk of multiple appeals if we agree to more intense development on a patch of land that we saw fit to decline so recently?"

Planning officer Daniel Evans told the committee: "Clearly there are material considerations now, because we've got a revised national planning policy framework.

"We haven't got a housing land supply, so the position is totally different to where we were in 2023, so I don't accept the point raised by Cllr Crane."

Mr Evans said councillors were only being asked to consider 'permission in principle' (PIP).

PIP is an alternative way of obtaining permission for housing-led development.

The first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second (technical details consent) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed.

Following a grant of permission, the site must receive a grant of technical details consent before development can proceed.

Dane Valley councillor Andrew Kolker (Con) said: "It is an agricultural field at the moment which, I suggest, wouldn't normally be acceptable for housing.

"However, we do live in different times at the moment.

"The government has stated that we need to increase the build rate substantially, which means we haven't got a full five-year housing land supply with the necessary buffer."

He added: "I can see very few reasons to refuse this.

"We fall well short of our housing requirement, and any design objections you may have are inappropriate at this time because it's simply establishing the principle of planning."

The permission in principle for development on the site was unanimously approved.