Contentious plans for a huge housing estate in Cheshire countryside have been thrown out.

Cheshire West and Chester Council's planning committee voted overwhelmingly to reject a Taylor Wimpey scheme for 110 properties in Tattenhall – despite planning officers having recommended approval.

The plans for an estate on 16 acres of greenfield land off Chester Road had already endured a bumpy ride, having been deferred from a previous planning meeting in May.

It had also faced opposition from local campaigners and councillors.

Housing mix was a primary issue raised by opponents, with concerns being echoed by members of the committee that too many of the homes were on the larger side, with too few smaller homes – which they said was not reflective of a housing needs assessment for the area.

The scheme had provision for 10 one-bedroom properties, 22 two-bedroom, 37 three-bedroom and 34 four bed homes, along with seven, five-bedroom properties.

A total of 33 were proposed for discount market sale, shared ownership and affordable social rent.

Cllr Mike Jones had called in the application, he told the meeting: "We need smaller properties in the rural area.

advertisement

"We have young people who have lived in the village, who get jobs in the village but who have to move to Winsford, Northwich or Chester because they can't secure housing in the village."

Committee member Chris Copeman told the committee: "I would like to move to refuse this application, it's an over supply of large homes with limited accessibility and affordability for older, disabled and young people."

In relation to a housing needs assessment carried out previously which looked at the specific requirements of the village, he added: "The housing mix is not based on local need. We know that the Tattenhall housing need assessment said there were more one to two bedroom homes that were a priority."

Council officers had said that the potential gains in terms of affordable homes mitigated some of the other concerns raised, but the committee disagreed. Eight members voted to refuse the application, one voted against and one abstained.