A judge has quashed Cheshire East's decision to grant planning permission for a 139-home extra care retirement complex at Alderley Park.

Alderley Park is a life science campus and, because it is in the green belt, development is restricted.

The council has a policy (LPS61) whereby some residential development is permitted on the site with the proceeds intended to develop the life sciences park.

In February last year Cheshire East's strategic planning board (SPB) gave the go-ahead for the extra care complex, known as Symphony Park, at Heatherley Woods, following a recommendation to approve from planning officers.

The planning officer's report to the SPB had stated: "The key consideration in terms of the overall quantum should be whether this development is demonstrated to be necessary for the delivery of the life sciences park and not prejudicial to its longer-term growth.

"The application confirms that an enhanced land receipt will be delivered from this site, which will contribute to filling the existing viability gap to deliver a new office development (minimum £16 million needed) and laboratory development (minimum £11.35 million needed) at Alderley Park."

But the planning documents didn't state how much funding would actually be provided from the development.

And a viability report included with the application stated Symphony Park would not fully 'plug' the viability gap.

The claimant, Protecting Our Park, said the application, from Symphony Park Holdings Ltd, was based on the contention that it was funding the construction of the laboratory and offices on the life sciences park, which had secured planning permission in March 2023.

But the council argued that it is sufficient to comply with policy LPS61 that the funding will support the development of the life sciences park as a whole.

Judge Pearce upheld two of three arguments put forward by the claimant.

The first was that it was not possible for the council to properly conclude that Symphony Park aligned with LPS61 policy without first identifying what cross funding would be available to the life sciences park on approval of the application.

The second was that the council failed to give adequate reasons for its decision.

The planning permission was quashed.

A spokesperson for Cheshire East Council told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "While we are disappointed by the outcome in this case, we fully respect the ruling and the judicial process."