Longridge inquiry concerns as officers’ views at odds with councillors

In December of last year, the council's strategic planning board (SPB) was unanimous in turning down an application from Dewscope Ltd to build 225 homes on the ‘treasured nature reserve’ on land east of Longridge at Knutsford.

That decision went against the council's planning officers’ recommendation that the scheme be approved, despite the officers acknowledging it would also result in inappropriate development in the green belt.The proposed development site at Longridge (Image: Supplied)

Dewscope appealed and at last month’s planning inquiry, Cheshire East planning officer Adrian Crowther, who was a witness for the council, stated in his proof of evidence: “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.”

Knutsford councillor Stewart Gardiner (Con), vice chair of the SPB which refused the application, says under these circumstances, it needs to be clear that the council’s position is that of the elected members and not the officers.

He said either the council’s environment and communities committee, which is the overseeing body for planning, or its audit and governance committee needs to look at this in respect of decisions made by the SPB, northern and southern planning committees.

Cllr Stewart Gardiner (Image: Cheshire East Council) Speaking at the recent meeting of the environment and communities committee, Cllr Gardiner said: “At the Longridge appeal, it was quite clear that the statement of common ground, that is the statement which is agreed by the council’s representative and the appellant’s representative, contained agreed positions which were counter to the points raised by members of the SPB in objecting to the application in the first place.

“Clearly, that was an unintended consequence of the process and I would like to know how we can amend that, so in future any appeal where members refuse an application, which is their legitimate right to do, ensures that those members have an input into the council’s position at that appeal.”

He said if officers recommend a planning application for refusal and it is refused ‘then the officers and the council are one and the same.’

But he said: “In a case where the officers recommend approval and members refuse it, the members’ position and the officers’ position are at odds and therefore there needs to be a clear positioning that the council’s position is that of the board [elected councillors] and not of the officers.”

Committee chair Mick Warren (Macclesfield, Con) said he would find out which committee was most appropriate to deal with the matter.

The council is now awaiting the outcome of the Longridge appeal decision.