Cheshire East councillors have granted “permission in principle” for four homes next to a natural burial site at Shavington, writes Belinda Ryan.
The proposal, from Simon Clutton, is for four self-build properties to be constructed on land to the rear of Pusey Dale Close, off Main Road.
Because the application was for permission in principle (PIP), councillors at today’s (April 1st) meeting of the southern planning committee were restricted to only considering location, land use and the amount of development at this first stage.
The applicant’s agent Russell Adams said: “The applicant has applied for the self-build dwellings due to a number of local residents approaching him and expressing an interest in building their own homes at the site.”
He said the site is in an attractive, sustainable location with direct access off Main Road.
“It is part of the burial site. There’s in excess of 40 to 50 years for coffin burials, and way in excess of that for urn burials,” said Mr Adams.
“It (the development] will have no bearing on, or insignificant bearing, on burial numbers.”
Planning officer Daniel Evans later told councillors: “The entirety of the site was for the interment of ashes only and then the application we discussed last year was for coffin burials…
“This application site is part of the original burial ground site, but it’s not part of the coffin burial area, and it’s within an area for the interment of ashes.”
He said the natural burial area was completely on the opposite side of the site.
Councillors were assured no burials had taken place on this particular area of the site.
Ward councillor Linda Buchanan (Lab) said: “In terms of location, the site is outside the settlement boundary, it’s in open countryside and green gap.
“Shavington is really, really vulnerable.
“We’re already losing the green gap, and part of a developer’s reasoning is because we haven’t got a five-year land supply, so it’s very, very difficult to refuse any green gap application.”
She continued: “In terms of land use, I just question, does introducing a residential development not undermine the sensitive location and character, in terms of the use of a natural burial ground?”
Cllr Buchanan later said because of the way PIP applications operated, the committee didn’t have the amount of technical information it required to be able to argue against the scheme in terms of harms outweighing benefits.
Dane Valley councillor Andrew Kolker (Con) said he sympathised with Cllr Buchanan but “despite the fact that it conflicts with many policies, the fact that we haven’t got a five-year housing land supply is an overriding consideration, and really I can’t see how we can refuse it”.
He moved the application be approved and this was later seconded by Sandbach councillor Mike Muldoon (Con).
Mr Evans told councillors said: “In terms of permission in principle, the whole point of PIP is there’s very limited amount of information on the application. It’s all pushed on to the technical details stage.”
But he said if any issues weren’t addressed at the later technical details stage, ‘it won’t get planning permission’.
The application was approved in principle, with eight councillors voting in favour and two abstaining.
Recent Comments