Plans for up to 90 homes near Chester have been deferred amid concerns over pedestrian and cycling access.

Cheshire West and Chester Council's planning committee was due to decide on an outline planning application for the development on Tuesday 3 November.

Submitted by Beck Homes in March, the application proposes building up to 90 homes on approximately 3.18 hectares of agricultural land off School Lane, to the north of Guilden Sutton.

Ward councillor Margaret Parker had requested the application be considered by the planning committee, citing concerns about inappropriate development in the green belt.

However, councillors unanimously voted to defer the application following concerns about the development's transport links and cycling access. Council planners had recommended the scheme be given the green light.

Only access arrangements and the number of homes are being considered at this stage, with details such as the design and layout of the homes to be decided later. Illustrative plans submitted with the application show a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced homes.

Guilden Sutton Parish Council previously objected to the proposals, warning they could erode the distinction between Chester's suburban areas and the surrounding Cheshire countryside.

Other objections included concerns about highway safety, increased traffic, a lack of pedestrian connections and the loss of agricultural land.

Councillor Margaret Parker, who represents Gowy Rural, spoke against the proposals during the meeting, warning the development would add to existing traffic pressures throughout the village.

She highlighted School Lane as a "particular concern", pointing to its blind bends, sections without pavements and its use by wheelchair users and parents with prams.

While acknowledging the need for new housing, Cllr Parker questioned whether it was the "right kind" of development for the village and if sufficient infrastructure was in place to support it.

She also raised concerns about pressure on water supplies, drainage, schools and medical services.

The village's bus service was another issue, with Cllr Parker describing its frequency as, at best, every two hours and arguing it failed "to meet normal commuting needs".

Located next to the proposed development, the public bus stop was repeatedly referred to by the planning officer as evidence that the site met the council's criteria for a sustainable location.

The frequency of the service, which runs every two hours and was described as not "an ideal frequency", was cited as an option to reduce reliance on a public car by the planning officer.

The officer acknowledged that the service, which runs every two hours, was not "an ideal frequency", but maintained it still offered residents an option to reduce their reliance on private cars.

Cllr Trisha Paterson, chair of Guilden Sutton Parish Council, questioned the loss of agricultural land used for food production, also raising concerns about the additional traffic the development could generate.

Planning manager Nick Smith defended the recommendation to approve the application, arguing the council had a significant housing shortfall to address. He also confirmed the land's use as crop growing field, but said he did "not believe it was relevant" to the planning discussion.

Mr Smith explained that, although Guilden Sutton was not the most sustainable location, officers considered it sustainable enough to meet the council's planning criteria.

He said: "When we say it's a sustainable location, we're not saying it is the most sustainable; it is a question of is it sustainable enough?"

The council's lack of a five-year housing land supply was also noted, with Mr Smith explaining that it was significantly below the required level.

However, Cllr Katrina Kerr questioned whether approving the principle of development through an outline application would leave councillors with little influence over the final proposals.

She raised concerns about the village's shortage of one and two-bedroom properties and questioned what assurances could be given that the developer would deliver a suitable mix of homes.

Saying "anything could happen to it once we leave this room", she argued the committee was being asked to "approve the principle of it without discussing further details".

She asked: "Is there anything we could say at this point to tie the developer's hands a bit harder to make sure they do deliver what they are saying and not just basically change their mind at a later date?"

In response, the planning officer referred to the outline application, which indicated the development could provide up to 100% affordable housing, although planning policy required 45% of homes to be secured as affordable housing.

Of this 45%, 60% would be allocated for affordable rent, with the remaining 40% secured for affordable sale.

Concerns about safe walking and cycling connections, particularly between Guilden Sutton and the Greenway, became a central part of the discussion.

Cllr Chris Copeman questioned the proposed financial contribution towards public green spaces, parks and recreation, describing it as "rather general".

He said there was "not enough provision" to avoid reliance on private cars in an area already struggling with traffic, adding there was a "terrible disconnect with what we say we want to do and what actually happens".

He also highlighted objections from Chester Cycle Group, which said the Greenway had "potential to be immensely valuable" in providing car-free access to Chester, but that access was "currently not safe enough to be used by anyone other than a very confident and competent adult cyclist".

The group previously said it would be "disingenuous" to call the proposed development "well connected or safe for cycling".

Cllr Copeman subsequently proposed refusing the application, citing the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its guidance that sustainable transport should be considered from the earliest stages of planning.

Cllr Razia Daniels seconded the motion, raising concerns about the development's impact on the character of the area and the safety of residents travelling on foot or by bicycle.

"What I have heard isn't acceptable to me," she said.

Cllr Ben Walker supported Cllr Copeman's concerns, arguing the existing route between Guilden Sutton and the Greenway discouraged cycling. He described the route as a "free for all at the mercy of sometimes very aggressive motorists", adding the development should help address this by providing safer access to the Greenway.

Mr Smith warned there was uncertainty over what improvements could realistically be delivered, arguing that imposing a planning condition requiring improvements to the Greenway would not be advisable.

Cllr Copeman eventually withdrew his proposal to refuse the application and instead moved to defer the decision. He argued further consideration was needed regarding improvements to the restricted byway and connections between Guilden Sutton and the Greenway.

The planning committee unanimously voted to defer the application. The proposals will be considered by councillors again at a later date.