Plans to site a miniature railway at Glebe Farm at Astbury, a popular attraction for Sandbach families, have been refused.

Rob Lomas wanted to build the railway, together with associated stations and overflow car park, to add to the popular visitor attraction off Peel Lane which already boasts a café, farm shop and open farm.

But Cheshire East's southern planning committee took just 25 minutes to turn down with the scheme – with six councillors voting to refuse the application and one voting against refusal.

Planning officer Richard Taylor told the meeting on the site is in the green belt.

"Where you have inappropriate development in the green belt, this should only be approved where very special circumstances outweigh the harm," said Mr Taylor.

"In terms of submission, we have not received specific details about how these proposals actually constitute very special circumstances other than general comments relating to farm diversity, farm diversification and economic benefits."

Astbury parish councillor Nick Sharman discussed the green belt issues but said the parish council also had other concerns relating to environmental disturbance and pollution.

"Our concern is that smoke, diesel fumes and particularly the noise of whistles and horns will create an unacceptable disturbance for neighbouring properties," he said.

The applicant's agent, Harry Brown, told the committee the track width was 'smaller than a 30 centimetre ruler'.

"Once installed, it will maintain visual openness and further enhance the landscape with the proposed planting schemes," said Mr Brown.

He said the trains that run on the track are unobtrusive, smaller than a car, and there are multiple types of trains including electric trains run off Glebe Farm's solar panels.

"The track itself is visually minimal, and associated facilities like the stations and crossings are modest and visually unobtrusive," said Mr Brown, adding the railway would provide educational opportunities for the nearby primary school.

Cllr John Wray (Brereton Rural, Con) proposed the application be refused.

It was refused on grounds relating to the green belt; there was not sufficient information relating to the impact on trees and it would result in less than substantial harm and fails to conserve or enhance the conservation area.