Plans for a motocross circuit have been knocked back as it would represent a "harmful visual intrusion" and "encroachment" into the open countryside.

Mr Boote submitted a retrospective planning application to Cheshire East Council for the change of use at land east of Chells Hill (B5078), Rode Heath, to a motocross circuit on an intermittent basis.

The application was submitted due to an enforcement investigation, with the use of the site exceeding the 28 days per calendar year allowed under permitted development.

According to Cheshire East planning officer's, the application site is "sloping" and land levels generally rose to the northern boundary adjacent to the Trent and Mersey Canal. The canal is located within a conservation area.

A watercourse is located along the southern boundary of the site and planning officers stated that there are areas of the site which "are at risk of flooding".

Part of the application site was located within Flood Zone 3 for Malkins Bank/Lawton Brook. This land is defined as having a high probability of flooding.

However, the application did not include a flood risk assessment.

The woodland on site is listed under the Priority Habitat Inventory and contains a pond.

An assessment by an ecologist to examine the impact on the woodland and ponds by the use as a motocross circuit was required to assess the potential negative impact on priority habitats.

Furthermore, in the absence of a tree survey or an arboricultural impact assessment there was no evidence provided to demonstrate that the impacts on the woodland had been considered.

Daniel Evans, a Cheshire East planning case officer, stated in his report: "The development represents a harmful visual intrusion and encroachment into the open countryside."

Betchton Parish Council objected to the application on the grounds that the use as a motocross circuit would generate "excessive loud noise" which could be heard in residential areas.

Cheshire East received 20 letters of objection from local households, the list of objections submitted included:

- Noise can be heard across the village of Rode Heath.

- Unable to use garden due to noise and must keep windows and doors shut in the summer.

- The site is not well screened and is clearly visible to the public.

- The site is within the green belt.

- Anti-social behaviour at the site.

- Impact upon biodiversity.

However, there was five letters of support submitted in favour of the application.

Residents submitted the following reasons why they felt the application should be approved:

- Noise does not cause a disturbance to day-to-day life.

- The site is a fantastic facility to this local area.

- The site offers a family day out.

- There is no safer alternative for families in the area.

- Noise is not noticeable above road traffic noise.

- Provides an important recreational area for teenagers.

The main impact in terms of residential amenity would be from the noise caused using the site.

This would typically be a result of the revving of engines, and other engine noise associated with acceleration and deceleration.

Mr Evans added: "The proposed development would generate noise and there is insufficient information relating to the impact upon residential amenity.

"In addition, the use of the site would cause harm to other users of the open countryside (such as the canal and local footpath network) in terms of noise generation."

No Landscape Assessment was provided by the applicant, but an assessment was provided by a local resident.

This identified that the proposed development would have a "major adverse impact", and this was accepted by the case officer.

Mr Evans, Cheshire East's case officer, highlighted that the site is located within the green belt and the proposals would represent "inappropriate development".

There are three ponds present on site, adjacent to "good quality" terrestrial newt habitat in the form of priority deciduous woodland.

No information was provided to identify whether Great Crested Newts were present on this site.

The application did not demonstrate that a "safe and suitable" access to the site could be achieved or whether adequate car parking provision was provided.

The application was refused on 9 December through delegated powers.