Back in 2013, a planning application was submitted for 134 homes in Cheshire. The inspector at the inquiry recommended the development for approval. However, Greg Clark, who was Secretary of State at the time, decided to reopen the inquiry because material considerations in the case had changed. The material considerations included the council's housing supply and development plan, both of which had changed.
Later in 2014, the inquiry was re-opened, leading to a second consideration of the proposal. This time, the developer had altered the planning proposals to include more affordable housing. The inspector once again recommended the development for approval, but Greg Clark refused permission. The Secretary of State believed that the inspector, in their recommendation to approve, had incorrectly assessed the economic benefits of the scheme. Mr Clark also said that the benefits of the scheme did not outweigh a conflict with the development plan, so rejected the proposal for a second time.
Following that decision, the developer appealed to the High Court, successfully. As a result, in 2018 the Secretary of State's decision was quashed, and the planning inquiry was reopened for a third time.
Just as in the previous two inquiries, the inspector once again recommended that the housing proposal was approved. Inspector Melvyn Middleton considered the local plan policies causing issues in the past, and decided that they were out of date. This meant the National Planning Policy Framework's "tilted balance" policy came into play. The policy states that if the policies are out dated then permission should be granted, with some cases excepted.
However, in what has become a bit of a predictable pattern with this development proposal, the current Housing Secretary, Robert Jenrick, dismissed the inspector's recommendation and rejected the plans.
Mr Jenrick noted that since the second inquiry, the council had adopted a second part to its local plan. The new policies included housing allocations and settlement boundaries. It was decided that the development proposal would be in breach of these new policies. It also conflicted with a Neighbourhood Plan for the area; a matter given moderate weight by the planning inspector, but significant weight by Mr. Jenrick.
So, for a third time, this development proposal was rejected.
Could there be a fourth attempt? Only time will tell.
