Case Reference: 3290072

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 30 May 2022
by M Ollerenshaw BSc(Hons) MTPl MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 12 July 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/W/22/3290072
Former Mollington Golf Course, Townfield Lane, Mollington, Chester
CH1 6NJ
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Cheshire West and Chester Council.
• The application Ref 20/03019/FUL, dated 7 August 2020, was refused by notice dated
12 July 2021.
• The development proposed is demolition of the existing building and structures and the
erection of 6no dwellings, creation of new public pedestrian and cycle path, and
community car park, together with associated landscaping, ecology mitigation and
infrastructure.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of
the existing building and structures and the erection of 6no dwellings, creation
of new public pedestrian and cycle path, and community car park, together
with associated landscaping, ecology mitigation and infrastructure at Former
Mollington Golf Course, Townfield Lane, Mollington, Chester CH1 6NJ in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/03019/FUL, dated 7
August 2020, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule at the end of this
decision.
Preliminary Matters
2. The description of development used above has been taken from the
appellant’s appeal form and Council’s decision notice as this is more precise
than that given in the original application form.
Main Issues
3. The main issues are:
• Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development within the
Green Belt having regard to relevant development plan policies and the
National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework);
• The effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green
Belt;
• Whether or not the site lies in a suitable location for new residential
development, having regard to relevant development plan policies; and
• If the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of
inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other
considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances
necessary to justify the development.
Reasons
Whether inappropriate development
4. The appeal site relates to part of the former Mollington Golf Course, which
includes the former clubhouse and greenkeepers building, a car park, areas of
grassland, fairways and gravel tracks. The site is bound by the former golf
course to the north, east and south and by residential properties on Townfield
Lane to the west. The site is within the Green Belt.
5. The Framework states that the Government attaches great importance to
Green Belts, the fundamental aim of which is to prevent urban sprawl by
keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are
their openness and permanence. Accordingly, the Framework says that the
construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as
inappropriate with certain exceptions. Policy STRAT 9 of the Cheshire West and
Chester Local Plan (Part 1) (2015) (LP1) reflects the provisions of the
Framework in relation to development in the Green Belt.
6. Paragraph 149 g) of the Framework allows for the limited infilling or the partial
or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites, whether redundant
or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a
greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing
development. The glossary to the Cheshire West and Chester Council Local Plan
(Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies (2019) (LP2) excludes land
and buildings used for outdoor sport and recreation purposes, including for the
playing of golf, from it’s definition of previously developed land. However, even
were I to find that the existing buildings occupy previously developed land, the
Framework definition of previously developed land is clear that it should not be
assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed. The proposed
dwellings would not be constructed on the footprint of the existing buildings but
would be situated on an undeveloped part of the site. Therefore, having
particular regard to the Framework’s definition of previously developed land, I
conclude that the proposed dwellings would not constitute the partial or
complete redevelopment of a previously developed site. None of the other
exceptions listed under paragraph 149 of the Framework apply to the proposal.
7. The proposed car park and creation of footpaths/cycle paths would be
engineering operations which would not be inappropriate development in the
Green Belt in accordance with paragraph 150 b) of the Framework. However,
the proposed dwellings would constitute inappropriate development within the
Green Belt. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy STRAT 9 of the
LP1 and the Framework in so far as they relate to development in the Green
Belt.
Openness and purposes of Green Belt
8. The Framework states that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their
openness and permanence. There is no definition of ‘openness’ in the
Framework, but it is commonly taken to mean the absence of built or otherwise
urbanising development.
9. Planning permission has been granted for the change of use of the clubhouse
to form one dwelling with associated works1. However, construction of the
appeal proposal would remove the potential for that extant planning permission
to be implemented. The proposed dwellings would represent a reduction in
both footprint and volume, though not in floorspace, compared to the existing
buildings on the site. However, the existing clubhouse is a relatively low-lying
structure, whilst the greenkeepers building is tucked away in a corner of the
site to the rear of Oak Grange Care Home, where it is inconspicuous due to
surrounding landform and vegetation. The proposed dwellings would be large,
two storey buildings which would be closer to and more visible from Townfield
Lane. Consequently, the proposed development would be more prominent than
the existing buildings on the site. Moreover, the provision of a new access
drive, car parking, boundary treatments and domestic paraphernalia would
increase the prominence of the development. Therefore, I consider that the
introduction of the new dwellings would have more of an impact on the
openness of the Green Belt in spatial and visual terms than the existing
buildings to be demolished.
10. The proposed dwellings would introduce new built form in a location that is
currently open and would represent an encroachment into this part of the
countryside. That would be contrary to the third purpose of including land
within the Green Belt as set out at paragraph 138 of the Framework.
11. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would result in moderate
harm to the openness of the Green Belt. This harm would be in addition to the
harm arising from the inappropriate nature of the proposal and would mean
that the proposal would conflict with Framework paragraph 149 g) even if the
appeal site was previously developed land based on the Framework’s definition.
Paragraph 148 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given
to any harm to the Green Belt. The proposal would conflict with the aims of the
Framework and would be contrary to Policy STRAT 9 of the LP1 which seek,
amongst other things, to prevent harm to the Green Belt.
Suitable location
12. Policies STRAT 1, STRAT 2 and STRAT 8 of the LP1 seek to ensure new
development is located so it is accessible to local services and facilities,
amongst other things. To achieve this, Policy STRAT 2 seeks to direct new
housing to identified settlements whilst Policy STRAT 8 states that within the
rural area, the Council will support development that serves local needs in the
most accessible and sustainable locations.
13. The appeal site is within Mollington which is not listed as a key service centre in
Policy STRAT 2 and is therefore within the countryside. Policy STRAT 9 of the
LP1 sets out the types of development that will be permitted within the
countryside, but the proposal would not fall within any of the categories of
acceptable development in the countryside listed.
14. Policy DM 1 of the LP2 states that proposals for residential development in the
countryside will be determined in line with the criteria set out in the LP2 Policy
1 Council ref 21/01831/FUL
DM 19, which says that residential development in the countryside will only be
supported in certain circumstances. One such circumstance would be the
redevelopment of previously developed land identified on the Council’s
Brownfield Land Register. However, as set out above, the proposal cannot be
considered previously developed land having regard to definition provided in
the LP2. Moreover, there is no indication that the site is listed on the Council’s
Brownfield Land Register. The proposal would not fall within any of the other
categories listed in LP2 Policy DM 19.
15. Other than a primary school and a public house, there are few services and
facilities within the village. Although there are bus stops along Townfield Lane
and Parkgate Road, the nearest railway station at Bache is a significant
distance away from the site. Chester is the nearest defined settlement
containing a full range of services and facilities. However, the edge of Chester
is around 2km away and the services and facilities available there would be
beyond short walking distance. Future occupiers of the development would be
largely dependent on private motor vehicles to conveniently access day-to-day
services.
16. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not be
a suitable location for housing, having regard to relevant local planning
policies. The development would conflict with Policies STRAT 1, STRAT 2,
STRAT 8 and STRAT 9 of the LP1, and Policies DM 1 and DM 19 of the LP2,
which seek, amongst other things, to restrict new housing development in the
countryside to that meeting an identified local need and to protect the intrinsic
character and beauty of the countryside.
Other considerations
Public Access
17. Whilst paths through the former golf course may be regularly used, the
proposal would formalise public access with the provision of pedestrian and
cycle links, including from Townfield Lane (using the existing driveway), and a
small car park would be created for visitors to the wider site. The new cycle
way would be constructed providing enhanced connections between the
Countess Country Park, the Countess of Chester Hospital and Mollington. It
would also provide improved access to the National Cycle Network which
connects to Chester City Centre. Although it is unclear whether the new cycle
way would achieve a suitable gradient for all potential users, it would be of
benefit to most users. Details of the public access works would be secured
through the Section 106 Agreement.
18. The proposal would not fit within any of the open space typologies used to
determine the availability of public open space. The Council argues that this
part of the borough already has good availability to open space. Nevertheless,
the proposals would provide a significant amount of new public open space
which would positively contribute to the area.
19. The golf course already provides a recreational use. However, other than the
existing public rights of way, the site is closed to the public. The proposals
would secure enhanced access to the site to the wider public. This element of
the scheme would accord with the aims of paragraph 145 of the Framework,
which states that once Green Belts have been defined, local planning
authorities should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use, such as
looking for opportunities to provide access; and to provide opportunities for
outdoor sport and recreation. This enhanced accessibility carries substantial
weight in favour of the proposed development.
Ecological enhancement and climate change
20. Although some areas of grassland and scrub would be lost as a result of the
proposals, the appeal scheme proposes significant new woodland planting
along the southern and western boundaries of the site, species rich grassland
to the south of the pond, to the eastern part of the site and on the footprints of
the existing buildings to be demolished, together with scrapes and
enhancements of an existing pond which will provide increased habitat
connectivity between the site and the wider landscape. A total of 7.5ha of tree
planting is proposed, consisting of 4.8ha of woodland planting and 2.7ha of
scrub planting. The Ecology Report indicates that this planting could offer in the
region of 20,000 individual trees/scrub specimens on the site and within the
wider golf course.
21. In turn this would provide both on and off site habitat creation. While the
existing site already contains valuable habitat, the appeal scheme would
provide a significant biodiversity net gain in the extent and quality of habitats
present on the site. The enhancement proposals would provide species-specific
enhancements to Great Crested Newts, reptiles and small mammals/nesting
birds whilst maintaining the value of the wider golf course to species which rely
on open expanses of rank grassland interspersed with scrub.
22. The planting scheme would also have carbon reduction benefits compared to
the existing situation, which would assist the Council’s aim to achieve carbon
neutrality within the borough by 2045. While the existing trees on the site
make a contribution in this respect, the significant additional tree planting
would increase carbon capture. These environmental benefits weigh
significantly in favour of the proposal.
Anti-social behaviour
23. The evidence before me indicates that the site has experienced high levels of
anti-social behaviour, including break-ins to the existing club house. The
formalisation of access to the site would increase natural surveillance and the
demolition of the existing vacant buildings would reduce incidences of anti-
social behaviour. However, the implementation of robust security measures on
the existing site could also reduce levels of anti-social behaviour. I give this
matter limited weight in favour of the appeal scheme.
24. The proposed development of six dwellings would make a small contribution to
the borough’s housing stock, albeit there is no dispute between the main
parties that the Council can currently demonstrate a five year housing land
supply. The creation of employment opportunities during the construction
phase of the development and spending in the local area by future occupants
also weigh in favour of the development proposal. I give these matters limited
weight.
Planning obligation
25. The completed Section 106 Agreement would secure the scheme of public
access to the site, including a management plan for the maintenance of the
footpaths, cycle way and visitor car park. It would also secure the planting and
ecological enhancement works and their management.
26. I am satisfied that the planning obligations contained within the Section 106
Agreement are necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related
to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development. They meet the tests set out within Regulation 122 of the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and paragraph 57 of the
Framework. They are therefore material considerations in this case.
Other Matters
27. Objections have been raised regarding a range of other matters, including
impacts on landscape character, highway safety, increased pressure on local
services and facilities, harm to neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions,
contamination and pollution, biodiversity and protected species, flood risk, light
pollution and that a precedent would be set. These matters do not form part of
the Council’s reason for refusal and I have no reason to disagree with the
Council’s assessment on these matters based on the evidence before me and
my own observations on site. There would be a significant separation distance
between the proposed dwellings and neighbouring occupiers which would be
sufficient to ensure no significant adverse effects on the living conditions of the
neighbours. The Council has not identified harm in relation to the protected
species on the site subject to the implementation of mitigation strategies,
which can be secured by conditions. I have no evidence before me to reach a
different conclusion in this regard. The very specific circumstances of this site
and the other considerations mean that no precedent would be set by approval
of the development. The absence of harm in respect of these matters is neutral
and they are not benefits of the scheme.
28. Other than the existing public rights of way, there is no substantive evidence
before me to indicate that the appeal site forms part of public or common land.
Planning Balance
29. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful
to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special
circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential
harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is
clearly outweighed by other considerations.
30. The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would
result in moderate harm to its openness. These harms carry substantial weight.
The development would conflict with the requirements of the development plan
in relation to sustainable locations for development which also weighs against
the proposal. However, I find that the other considerations in this case,
specifically the enhanced public access to the site and ecological
enhancements, would result in significant benefits which would clearly
outweigh the harm that I have identified. Looking at the case as a whole, I
consider that very special circumstances exist which justify the development.
Conditions
31. I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council in their
statement. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the relevant tests in
the Framework, Planning Practice Guidance and of statute. In that context I
have modified the wording of some of the conditions proposed by the Council
without altering their fundamental aims.
32. In addition to the standard implementation condition, I have imposed a
condition specifying the relevant plans as this provides certainty.
33. In the interests of preserving and enhancing biodiversity, conditions are
necessary in relation to the management of invasive species, mitigation
strategies for protected species, and external lighting.
34. Conditions relating to contaminated land and remediation are necessary in
order to identify and minimise any risks associated with contamination from
past uses. These need to be ‘pre-commencement’ conditions due to the risks
inherent in developing the site.
35. Details of a drainage system are required by a pre-commencement condition to
secure the satisfactory drainage of the site. A condition to secure the
implementation of measures to reduce and manage flood risk is also required.
36. In order to preserve the character and appearance of the area, conditions are
required in relation to details of existing and finished site levels, samples or
details of materials, hard landscaping and boundary treatments.
37. In the interests of highway safety, I have included conditions to require
implementation of the necessary works within the public highway, provision of
access, car parking and turning areas and details of cycle parking and surfacing
for the cycle way / footpaths. Electric vehicle charging points are required in
the interest of reducing carbon emissions.
38. It is necessary to construct the dwellings to reduce water consumption and
carbon dioxide emissions in the interest of mitigating climate change.
39. In order to reduce the risk of crime and anti-social behaviour, a condition
requiring details of security measures is necessary.
Conclusion
40. For the above reasons, having considered the development plan as a whole,
the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations,
I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.
M Ollerenshaw
INSPECTOR
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans: 491-PL-01 Rev A, 491-PL-02 Rev A, 491-PL-03, 491-
PL-04 Rev A, 491-PL-05, 491-PL-06, 491-PL-07, VN91395-D101 Rev A
VN91395-D103 Rev B, and 769A-10B.
Before development commences
3) No development shall take place until a scheme for the management of
invasive species has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to
the commencement of the development or otherwise in accordance with a
timetable to be agreed prior to the commencement of the development.
4) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
outline mitigation strategy for bats set out in the report entitled Ecological
Assessment Report ref 12301_R04a_KM_HM dated 6 August 2020 by Tyler
Grange. Details of the bat boxes referred to therein shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement
of the development. The approved bat boxes shall be installed prior to the first
occupation of the development and retained permanently thereafter.
5) No development shall take place until a method statement which outlines
measures to protect reptiles has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out wholly in
accordance with the approved scheme.
6) No development shall take place until an assessment of the risks posed by any
contamination has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. This assessment must be undertaken by a suitably qualified
person, and shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it
originates on the site. The assessment shall include: (i) a survey of the extent,
scale and nature of contamination; and (ii) an assessment of the potential risks
to human health, adjoining land, groundwater and surface waters; ecological
systems; and archaeological sites and ancient monuments.
7) No development shall take place where (following the risk assessment) land
affected by contamination is found which poses risks identified as unacceptable
in the risk assessment, until a detailed remediation scheme shall have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
scheme shall include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the
preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation
criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken
including the verification plan. The remediation scheme shall be sufficiently
detailed and thorough to ensure that upon completion the site will not qualify
as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
in relation to its intended use. The approved remediation scheme shall be
carried out and upon completion a verification report by a suitably qualified
person shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority before the development is occupied.
8) No development shall take place until details of a sustainable drainage system
to serve the site, including a method statement and timetable of
implementation and details of arrangements to secure the funding and
maintenance of the drainage scheme for the lifetime of the development have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
scheme shall be based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of
the hydrological and hydro-geological context of the development. The
approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details and timetable and the approved drainage system shall be managed and
maintained in accordance with the approved scheme permanently thereafter.
9) No development shall take place until details of existing and finished site levels
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved levels.
Before work above slab level
10) No development shall take place above ground floor slab level until there has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a
scheme of hard landscaping for the dwellings, the shared courtyard, the public
car park and all vehicular and pedestrian access roads. The hard landscaping
works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any
part of the development is first occupied.
Before occupation or other stage conditions
11) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved a scheme of
external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be installed in full prior to the
occupation of the development or otherwise in accordance with a timetable
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to
the occupation of the development. The lighting shall then be retained in full
working order permanently thereafter. No external lighting other than in
accordance with the approved scheme shall be installed on the site.
12) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved a plan indicating
the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The approved plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details prior to the first occupation of the development and shall be maintained
thereafter.
13) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved details of the
surfacing for the cycleway/public right of way shown on drawing 769A-10B
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The cycleway/public right of way shall be surfaced in accordance with the
approved details and made available for use prior to the first occupation of the
development or otherwise in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the
development.
14) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved a scheme of cycle
parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the cycle
parking approved for that dwelling has been made available for use. The cycle
parking shall be retained in working order permanently thereafter.
15) Prior to occupation of the first unit, works within the public highway shown on
drawings VN91395-D101 Rev A and VN91395-D103 Rev B shall be carried out
in full.
16) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the access, car
parking and turning areas which serve that access have been laid out and are
available for use in accordance with the approved drawings. The access, car
parking and turning areas shall thereafter be kept available for their stated
purpose.
17) Prior to the first occupation of the development details of electric charging
points for parking spaces shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. The electric charging points shall be installed as approved
prior to occupation of the development and shall be maintained and retained as
such thereafter.
18) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved details of security
measures to be installed to enhance the safety and security of the site and the
wider former golf course shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented in full
prior to the occupation of the development or otherwise in accordance with a
timetable submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
prior to the occupation of the development and retained in working order
permanently thereafter.
19) Before their use in the development hereby approved, samples or details of
materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces shall have
been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The
development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the
agreed samples or details, and retained as such thereafter.
20) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
outline mitigation strategy for Great Crested Newts set out in the report
entitled Ecological Assessment Report ref 12301_R04a_KM_HM dated 6 August
2020 by Tyler Grange.
21) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
Reasonable Avoidance Measures for badgers set out in the report entitled
Ecological Assessment Report ref 12301_R04a_KM_HM dated 6 August 2020 by
Tyler Grange.
22) Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the
approved development that was not previously identified shall be reported
immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the
site affected shall be suspended and a risk assessment carried out and
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where
unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These
approved schemes shall be carried out before the development is resumed or
continued.
23) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
measures set out in the document entitled Flood Risk and Surface Water
Drainage Assessment ref 3244-FRA dated August 2020 by Integra Consulting.
24) The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed/plumbed in such a way to
meet the National Housing Standard for water consumption of 110 litres per
person per day and shall be retained as such thereafter.
25) The development hereby approved shall be designed and constructed to
achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of at least 19% against the
Target Emission Rate of the 2013 Building Regulations (Part L).
END OF SCHEDULE