A DECISION by councillors to overturn the advice of their officials and refuse permission for more than 40 new homes in a Chester hamlet has been backed by a planning inspector.

The development was proposed on industrial and commercial land on Tattenhall Road, Newton by Tattenhall by Mr R Blackham and Blackham Developments where it would more than double the number of dwellings in the locality.

The site is occupied by a number of commercial buildings and The Oak Room pub, originally a Victorian hotel, all of which are vacant, together with a yard and a car park.

The commercial part of the site was previously occupied by an architectural salvage business which has moved to premises on the opposite side of the road.

The land at one time provided storage for Tattenhall Station.

Thirty nine new dwellings would be built, planning officers at the former Chester City Council were told and four self-contained flats would be created above the pub.

The pub itself would be retained and refurbished and a small shop would be reinstated attached to the pub.

The vacant commercial buildings and modern additions to the pub would be demolished.

The traditional design houses would be mainly two storey dwellings arranged as semis and in terraces.

The developers offered three homes at a 30% discount together with a financial contribution towards affordable housing in Tattenhall.

Objections were raised by Cheshire County Council and by the city council's affordable housing officer who argued the development would not include sufficient affordable housing.

The Town Hall described the site as being in an unsustainable location and pointed to a loss of employment land.

The development was opposed by Tattenhall and District Parish Council which believed it was premature and a master plan for the hamlet should be produced.

The density of housing would be too high, councillors felt and would detract from adjacent cottages.

Parish councillors also raised the lack of affordable housing and said parking was inadequate and the scheme would affect highway safety.

They were concerned about the possibility of flooding.

The city council had seven objections from residents raising similar concerns and arguing the developers had not identified a need for the proposed housing which, they said, would significantly impair views of the open countryside towards Beeston and Peckforton.

Occupiers were also worried about the effect of the development, taken with other large-scale projects in the area including a nearby 300 berth marina, which they felt would be highly detrimental in terms of traffic and light pollution.

Planning permission was refused and the developers appealed to communities and local government secretary Hazel Blears who appointed inspector Karen Ridge to decide the issues at a hearing.

The inspector suggests the main issues are the acceptability of residential development on the site, affordable housing, the effect on neighbours and the impact on the character and appearance of the area.

In a detailed nine page report she points out there are no footways in the vicinity of the site and believes most of the occupiers of the 43 homes would be largely reliant on cars for their day to day needs.

The development would not be in a sustainable location and the inspector argued the benefits in removing the vacant commercial buildings were outweighed by the fact occupiers would be largely dependent on cars.

She took the view the developers had not put forward exceptional circumstances which would justify not providing affordable housing on the site and described an undertaking as "vague and ambiguous."

Occupiers of an adjoining 17th century two storey cottage would have their outlook and privacy affected although overall the development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

It was "surprising" there was no provision for play and open space given the housing would appeal to young families and the inspector believed this was "a serious omission."

She was not satisfied the level of parking was acceptable and suggested that parking on Tattenhall Road, described as a relatively narrow, unlit country road, could be potentially dangerous.

Dismissing the appeal, the inspector found that 43 homes in an unsustainable location was unacceptable in principle.

The scheme did not make adequate provision for affordable housing, play and open space and parking and affected living conditions in Station Cottage.

BLOB Councillors heard that Chester district is required to provide 7,500 new houses by 2021 with eight out of 10 being built on previously used land.

They were told that "large windfall sites", such as the land in Newton by Tattenhall, could play a "major role'' in ensuring the district's housing targets are met.

Planning officers accepted the land is in a rural area but said the benefits included the redevelopment of the vacant site.

They pointed out it could lawfully be used for a variety of business purposes including storage and warehousing and has previously seen the storage of haulage vehicles, a motor repair garage, a reclamation yard and a coal yard.

Since 1992 it has had a permit to allow the storage of up to 1,500 tonnes of any hazardous substance.

"The applicants have indicated they intend to dispose of the land for commercial purposes if this application for housing development does not succeed,'' said a report.

It argued the use of the site for business purposes does not conform to the character of the area and had the potential to cause significant harm to the visual amenity of the open countryside and nearby dwellings.

The development would allow for the creation of a pub and shop which could serve the "significant levels of visitors" to the area expected from the large marina, said planning officers.

They accepted the development would normally be required to include 22 affordable homes but said the applicants had shown this would make the scheme unviable bearing in mind the high value of the site for commercial purposes and the current economic slowdown.

Recommending the application should be approved, planning officers said the Environment Agency had raised no objection with regard to flood risk.

Councillors were asked to agree the development subject to a number of conditions including the pub and shop to be let before the first dwelling is occupied and a legal agreement to cover the affordable housing.

Raising concerns about the amount of industrial development taking place in the hamlet, Cllr Mike Jones (Con), then a Tattenhall city councillor, said he had "no problem" with the principle of developing the site for housing.

Pointing out he had "fought very hard" for Chester district to have growth point status, he said there was "a desperate need" for affordable housing and none was proposed in the development.

This was in direct contradiction to the city council's policies.

He pointed out there are was an opportunity for housing to be provided to support industrial development in the neighbourhood but said the jobs might not be well paid and low cost housing was needed.

Supporting proposals for a masterplan for the area, he believed the application was "premature" and asked for it to be refused.

Cllr Jones suggested there was a "sizeable difference" between the value of the affordable housing which was proposed by the developer and that which was being provided by other housebuilders in Chester district.

Councillors agreed on a 12-0 vote with one abstention that the application should be refused as the site, set in open countryside, is not sustainable and the development did not include affordable homes.

Councillors also believed that there should be a master plan for the hamlet.