# Sycamore Farm, Well Bank Lane, Over Peover - **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Evans - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008176 - **Application reference:** 25/2744/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of vacant dwelling and outbuildings and erection of a replacement (self-build) house with landscape scheme - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG3, SD1, SD2, Cheshire East SADPD 2022 RUR13 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development in Green Belt, replacement building policy, other considerations - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, pdl-e-limb, replacement-dwelling-materially-larger, fallback, self-build, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, local-plan-gb-policy-out-of-date, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, previous-appeal-superseded ## Summary A much larger replacement house on a Green Belt farmstead of derelict buildings. Allowed: as redevelopment of PDL causing only moderate (not substantial) harm to openness, it met GB7(1)(e) and was not inappropriate. The local replacement policy conflict (not "materially larger") got very limited weight because the policy does not reflect GB7(1)(e). An agreed permitted-development fallback would harm visual openness more. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had an opportunity to comment on the revised Framework" (DL ¶3). - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "the proposal would result in a moderate loss of visual openness. On this basis, I have found that the proposed development would result in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal therefore meets the exception in Policy GB 7 (1) (e) of the Framework" (DL ¶11). - **RUR13 conflict: very limited weight.** "The development plan policy also does not reflect the revised wording of Policy GB 7 (1) (e) of the Framework ... I have attached only very limited weight to the policy conflict" (DL ¶17). - **Fallback.** Agreed realistic. "The fallback scheme would, therefore, have a greater impact on visual openness than the proposed development ... This attracts moderate weight" (DL ¶21). - **Self-build: moderate** (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance Not inappropriate, so no VSC. "There is a degree of conflict with SADPD Policy RUR13, however, it is inconsistent with the Framework and therefore, this conflict attracts very limited weight. The benefits of approving this proposal substantially outweigh any adverse effects" (DL ¶35). S5(5) is not named; the conclusion is framed as benefits substantially outweighing harm, which is more than S5(5) requires. ## What made the difference Treating the whole farmstead as PDL under (e) rather than testing the house alone under (b). On (e), openness harm is judged against all existing buildings, and removing the barn and outbuildings offset the bigger house. The PD fallback showed the alternative would be worse for openness. ## Transferable points - A replacement dwelling far larger than the existing one can still pass GB7(1)(e) where the whole site is PDL and the harm to openness is only moderate (DL ¶8–11). - A local replacement-building policy that does not reflect GB7(1)(e) carries very limited weight (Transitional(2)) (DL ¶17, ¶35). - A certified PD fallback that would spread more built form over the site can weigh in favour of a consolidated replacement (DL ¶20–21). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** agreed PDL; ridge 7.77 m v 5.86 m, footprint 441 v 118 sq m; moderate loss of visual openness, spatial openness improved by removing outbuildings; not substantial harm, so not inappropriate (DL 6-12) - **Transitional(2): neutral (very-limited weight).** RUR13 "materially larger" replacement test does not reflect GB7(1)(e); conflict (199% floorspace, 274% footprint increase) given very limited weight (DL 14-17, 35) - **HO5: benefit (moderate weight).** self-build secured by UU (no demand evidence) moderate weight; UU also secures BNG self-build exemption (DL 23); code mapped by harvester - **DP3: pass.** no conflict with CELPS SD1/SD2; no character harm alleged (DL 13, 16-17) ## Key facts - Previous replacement-dwelling appeal dismissed (APP/R0660/W/24/3348007); scheme reduced since (DL 7, 22) - Lawful development certificate fallback for PD extensions, garage and annex agreed as realistic; appeal scheme 24% less volume, 11% less floor area, 34% less footprint than fallback plus retained structures (DL 18-21) - Fallback's greater visual openness impact given moderate weight (DL 21) - Demolition of all buildings and PD removal by condition (DL 31, 33) - Both parties had an opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008176 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/eef421e9-b27b-4b9d-b923-0ed7446029d0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008176.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.