Failed Planning Applications in Newbold Astbury cum Moreton, Cheshire East | January - August 2023

In the span of 2023, Newbold Astbury cum Moreton in Cheshire East witnessed a series of planning application rejections. For prospective developers, it's crucial to understand the underlying reasons behind these refusals, ensuring their future proposals align with the local planning guidelines. Here's a summary of the reasons for rejection based on the given data:

Inappropriate Development in the Green Belt:

• The proposed structures were considered inappropriate for the Green Belt as they would reduce its openness by introducing more built structures and increasing activity.
• Such projects did not align with the criteria and exceptions stipulated in the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
• The harm caused to the Green Belt was contrary to Policy PG3 (Green Belt) of the Cheshire East Local Plan, the Astbury and Moreton Neighbourhood Plan's P1 policy, and the NPPF.

Detrimental Design and Material Selection:

• The chosen black/grey natural stained timber and Corten steel deviated from the traditional aesthetics of the rural area, introducing a contemporary look.
• This choice was found to be inconsistent with Policies SE1 (Design) and SD2 (Sustainable Development Principles) of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Policy GEN1 (Design Principles) of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, Policy P4 (Design) of the Astbury and Moreton Neighbourhood Plan, and the NPPF.

Unclear Impact on Flood Risk:

• Applications failed to provide clear insights regarding flood risks, leaving the potential impacts of such developments ambiguous.
• This inadequacy contradicts Policy SE13 (Flood Risk and Water Management) of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Policy ENV16 (Surface Water Management and Flood Risk) of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, and the NPPF.

Incompatible Developments in the Countryside:

• Proposed developments, because of their loss of vegetation, substantial construction materials, and increased height, would adversely affect the open countryside's character and appearance.
• Such initiatives were found to be inconsistent with policies PG6, SE4, SD1, and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, as well as RUR7 and RUR13 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and P6 of the Astbury and Moreton Neighbourhood Plan.

No Demonstrated Need for Rural Workers:

• Applications failed to justify the necessity for a rural worker to reside on-site or provide evidence of an existing functional need or the financial viability of the enterprise.
• Such projects opposed Policy PG6 of the Cheshire East Local Plan and the NPPF.

Unsuitable Design for Equestrian Uses:

• The materials and design for proposed stables were not deemed appropriate for their intended use and could be repurposed for non-equestrian functions.
• These proposals went against Policy RUR7 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document.

Ambiguous Impact on Biodiversity:

• Applications lacked clarity about the potential impact on site hedgerows and whether there would be a net biodiversity gain.
• Such inadequacies contradicted policies SE3 and SE5 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, ENV1 and ENV2 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, and P12 of the Astbury and Moreton Neighbourhood Plan.

Conclusion‍

For individuals and entities looking to table future applications in Newbold Astbury cum Moreton, comprehending these denials' root causes is pivotal. By recognising the reasons that led to earlier application rejections, future applicants can adeptly refine their designs, navigating the intricate planning landscape of Newbold Astbury cum Moreton more efficiently.

‍