Manor House Farm, Hillfoot Lane, Kingsley (Appeal A — planning)

Decision

dismissed, 10 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: L Fleming

Authority

Cheshire West and Chester (North West)

Appeal reference

6005495

Application reference

24/01335/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Conversion of farm buildings at a Grade II* farmstead to dwellings, removal of later additions, farmhouse extension, and a new-build "replacement" dwelling (six dwellings in total) (non-determination)

Homes

6

Site context

green belt, open countryside, rural lane, listed building setting

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt not argued)

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB6(2), GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, S5(1)(j), HE6

Development plan policies

Cheshire West and Chester LP1 2015 STRAT 1, 2, 8, 9, ENV 5, ENV 6, LP2 2019 DM 1, 3, 9, 22, 47

Main issues

heritage; inappropriate development; openness; location; VSC

Summary

Conversion of a Grade II* farmstead's traditional buildings, plus one new detached house presented as a "replacement dwelling". The conversions were acceptable and a heritage benefit. The new house was inappropriate in the Green Belt: it was not a replacement, grey belt was not shown, and it was in any event unsustainably located under TR3. It harmed visual openness and the setting of the farmhouse, and it failed S5(1)(j) because it was not well-related to a settlement. Dismissed. The joint LBC appeal (PINS-6005497) was dismissed on the same heritage reasoning.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties commented on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4).
• "Replacement" dwelling. Subdivision was unauthorised, so "the proposed 'replacement dwelling' would not be a replacement, it would be a new additional dwelling" (DL ¶6).
• Heritage (HE6): harm. The new house would "dilute the historic relationship between the farmhouse, its associated agricultural buildings and their rural setting" (DL ¶16), and this outweighed the conversion benefits. Enabling-development justification failed under GPA4: "I am not satisfied that alternative, less harmful options have been robustly assessed and discounted" (DL ¶18).
• Location (TR3, S5(1)(j)): FAIL. "a narrow rural road without footways and some distance from bus stops and day-to-day services … would not be in an attractive location for walking or cycling to services, particularly in inclement weather" (DL ¶24). Under fn28 the site must be physically well-related to a settlement, and it was not (DL ¶25).
• Green Belt: inappropriate. "It has not been demonstrated that the proposal should be treated as not inappropriate development by reference to the Framework's grey belt provisions. In any event … the proposed new-build dwelling would not be in a sustainable location" (DL ¶28). Net volume reduction "does not, in itself, mean that the proposal would preserve Green Belt openness" (DL ¶29), and there was visual openness harm (DL ¶31).

Planning balance

The inspector ran both tests. S5: "the benefits of the proposal would clearly be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects". GB6(2): "The other considerations also do not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm and the other harms" (DL ¶37). Six homes attracted substantial weight (DL ¶36).

What made the difference

The single new-build house on open land. Without it, the conversion scheme appears acceptable in Green Belt, heritage and location terms, since the parties agreed the conversions complied with STRAT 9 and DM 22. The appellant had not tested alternative, less harmful ways to fund the restoration.

Transferable points

• A "replacement dwelling" for an unauthorised subdivision is a new dwelling (DL ¶5-6).
• A narrow lane without footways, far from buses, fails both TR3 and GB7(1)(g)(iii) (DL ¶24, 28).
• An overall reduction in volume does not preclude visual harm to openness where new built form moves onto open land (DL ¶29-31).
• An enabling-development or viability case needs evidence that the harmful element is the minimum necessary (GPA4) (DL ¶17-19).
• S5(1)(j) unmet need does not assist where the site is not physically well-related to a settlement (fn28) (DL ¶25, 37).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Grade II* late-17th-century farmhouse with traditional brick ranges; all other elements amount to a heritage benefit
• New detached house on open rising land east of the farmhouse; described as a "replacement" of a claimed second dwelling, which the Inspector found unlawful
• Hillfoot Lane is narrow with no footways; bus stops and services some distance away
• Viability or enabling argument rejected under GPA4 because less harmful alternatives had not been tested
• UU and revised drawings submitted late were not considered

Related decisions

• PINS-6005497

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.