- Decision
- allowed, 11 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Laura Bartle
- Authority
- Cheshire East (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6005877
- Application reference
- 25/0958/PIP
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for 1-6 dwellings
- Homes
- 6
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(g), TR3, S5(5), S3
- Development plan policies
- Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy PG3, SD1, SD2, Handforth Neighbourhood Plan H1, 18
- Main issues
- grey belt; sustainable location; S5(5) balance
Summary
A PIP for up to six dwellings on an undeveloped field on the edge of Heald Green. Allowed. The field was grey belt because it is physically enclosed by development and infrastructure. Unmet need followed from the Council's supply shortfall. The site adjoins the built-up area with good pedestrian links, so it passed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3. Not being inappropriate, it was approved under the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶9).
- Local plan GB policy. PG3 "predates the revised Green Belt provisions … and does not reflect the concept of grey belt land … I attach very limited weight to the policy conflict in accordance with Annex A" (DL ¶12).
- Grey belt: PASS. "Although the site is undeveloped, it is physically enclosed by development and infrastructure along the majority of its boundaries" (DL ¶16). "The site does not therefore strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes relating to unrestricted sprawl or settlement merging" (DL ¶17).
- Unmet need: PASS (DL ¶19).
- Sustainable location (iii) / TR3: PASS. "the site adjoins the built-up area of Heald Green and benefits from access to good pedestrian infrastructure connecting it to some day-to-day services and facilities" (DL ¶20). "Although not all facilities lie within the distances referred to in the supporting text to Policy SD 2 … future occupiers would have reasonable access to shops, education facilities, public transport options and other services" (DL ¶21).
- Not inappropriate (DL ¶22).
Planning balance
S5(5). Housing benefit given moderate weight; "I have not identified any adverse effects that would substantially outweigh those benefits" (DL ¶27). The S3 presumption applies.
What made the difference
Physical enclosure made the land grey belt despite being greenfield. Adjacency to the built-up edge, with good existing pedestrian infrastructure, carried limb (iii). The PIP format kept other matters (highways, ecology, flooding) out of scope. Compare the Tandridge and Halsall dismissals (PINS-6010313, PINS-6007428), where the walking route had no footway.
Transferable points
- Undeveloped land can be grey belt where it is "physically enclosed by development and infrastructure along the majority of its boundaries" (DL ¶16).
- A strong physical barrier (a major road) between two settlements supports a finding of no strong contribution to purpose (b) (DL ¶16).
- Pre-2026 local plan GB policies that do not recognise grey belt get "very limited weight" under Annex A (DL ¶12).
- Limb (iii) can pass even if not all facilities fall within local accessibility distances, where the site adjoins a built-up area with good pedestrian infrastructure (DL ¶¶20–21).
- Once GB7 is passed, S5(5) applies and the decision-maker runs the "substantially outweighed" balance (DL ¶26).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | undeveloped field but "physically enclosed by development and infrastructure along the majority of its boundaries"; Airport Relief Road keeps Heald Green/Handforth apart (DL 15-17) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | agreed would not fundamentally undermine purposes across plan area (DL 18) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | council's latest 5YHLS evidence shows a shortfall (figure not stated) (DL 19) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | adjoins built-up area with "good pedestrian infrastructure"; reasonable access to shops, education, public transport, though not all within SD2 distances (DL 20-21) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iv) | not-engaged | not major (DL 22) | |
| CELPS PG3 | conflict | very-limited | predates grey belt / GB7; very limited weight under Annex A (DL 12) |
| S5(5) | pass | not inappropriate → S5(5) engaged; no adverse effects substantially outweigh moderate benefits (DL 26-27) | |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | housing in a reasonably sustainable location (DL 27) |
Key facts
- Undeveloped field between the built-up edge of Heald Green and a farm redevelopment; enclosed on most sides
- Manchester Airport Relief Road and open land keep Heald Green and Handforth apart
- Site adjoins the built-up area with good pedestrian links to day-to-day services
- A sliver of the site lies in Stockport; PIP granted only for the Cheshire East part
Sources
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.