Macclesfield residents are celebrating after councillors went against planning officers' advice and refused a controversial application for up to 200 homes on green belt land.

Objectors packed into Macclesfield Town Hall on Thursday (September 11) as Cheshire East's strategic planning board considered an outline application from Bloor Homes for permission for up to 200 homes on a 15.4-hectare site on the north side of Prestbury Road, together with access.

Ward councillor Judy Snowball (Lab) listed numerous reasons why the application should be refused.

Speaking as a visiting councillor, she told the committee: "We have an existing local plan, and the development of this land is not in it."

Cllr Snowball said there were sound planning reasons to turn down the scheme, which the council's planning officers had recommended for approval.

"Key objections from Cheshire East officers, landscape and heritage, are not included in the pack," she told the committee.

And the Macclesfield councillor disagreed with planning officers who had argued the land was grey belt.

"It is green belt," she said, adding: "Once it's gone, it's gone forever."

Macclesfield councillors David Edwardes (Ind) and Emma Gilman (Ind), in a statement read out at the meeting, urged councillors: "Please do what you feel is right for the residents."

The statement continued: "Prestbury Road is a death trap. Poor visibility, a blind bend… That is the access you're being asked to approve…

"A single entrance and exit for 200 homes…

"Make no bones about this, an accident will happen. This is not about convenience, it's about life and death."

Nick Cheetham, who was speaking on behalf of more than 470 objectors, told the committee: "The proposed access is dangerous."

He too argued the land was green belt, saying: "Cheshire East's own landscape and heritage design officers confirm the importance of this area to the setting of the town."

Anna Ralph, agent for Bloor Homes, insisted the site was grey belt land.

She told the meeting: "There is a pressing need to grant planning permission for new homes.

"It is only right that a significant proportion of the further homes required are delivered in Macclesfield."

During the meeting, committee members raised concerns about the safety of the proposed access, but highways officer Paul Griffiths insisted it met standards.

As soon as the debate started, Congleton councillor Heather Seddon (Lab) proposed the application be approved.

"I agree it is grey belt, it is an infill," she said.

"I'm satisfied the issue regarding pedestrian safety, driver safety, has been met."

No-one was prepared to second her approval.

Hundreds of people objected to the plans, including the MP for Macclesfield (Credit: Tim Roca)

Cllr Hannah Moss (Mobberley, Con) proposed the application be refused, saying it was designated green belt in the local plan.

"Brownfield sites should be the priority, not fields of high grade currently being farmed," she said.

"This application brings irreversible harm to the green belt and the Bollin Valley landscape.

"There will be visual harm, and we still do not know the risk that may be present to the local ancient woodland due to the lack of expert assessment."

Crewe councillor Marilyn Houson (Lab) said: "Once it's gone, it's gone.

"So, we're looking at agreeing today for that special character of this area to be gone.

"And we're looking to agree today for good agricultural land, which is currently being grazed, to be gone."

She added: "I feel a responsibility today to be absolutely 100 per cent sure that I would agree that this application should be approved, and I can't."

The application was refused on the grounds the proposal is inappropriate development in the green belt, it fails to meet the definition of grey belt, and there are no very special circumstances which exist to outweigh this harm.

There is also harm to the Bollin Valley local landscape designation.

Six councillors voted for refusal, one voted against and one abstained.