# Land adjacent to 33A Chelford Road, Somerford (PIP, Jodrell Bank WHS) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Smith - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008864 - **Application reference:** 25/3451/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to five dwellings on an open field next to the Congleton settlement boundary, within the Jodrell Bank consultation zone - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE8, HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG6, SD1, SD2, SE1, SE14, SADPD 2022 HER9 - **Main issues:** suitable location, Jodrell Bank World Heritage Site - **Tags:** PIP, world-heritage-site, evidence-gap, heritage-harm-decisive, s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, self-build-unsecured, drafting-slip, car-dependence-moderate, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for up to five homes on a field at Somerford, next to Congleton. Dismissed. The site met S5(1)(j), and the location conflict with local accessibility policies was limited. But the site is in the Jodrell Bank consultation zone, and no heritage statement assessed radio-frequency interference with the World Heritage Site. The inspector held that omission determinative under HE8, and the heritage balance failed. ## Issues and findings - **Location.** Occupiers "would be likely to rely on private vehicles rather than on the nearby the bus services, or the presence of a National Cycle Network route" (DL ¶12). But "the journey to Congleton is relatively short in time and distance, when undertaken by private vehicle. Consequently, the development would retain a reasonable and overall sustainable relationship with the services and facilities" (DL ¶13). - **S5(1)(j).** "the proposed development would be well related to an existing settlement and, given its modest scale, could be accommodated without placing undue pressure on existing or planned infrastructure" (DL ¶29). - **HE8, evidence gap.** "No Heritage Statement has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not adversely affect the operational efficiency of the telescopes through radio frequency interference" (DL ¶22). "This omission is a determinative factor in the outcome of this appeal" (DL ¶22). - **Conditions at PIP stage.** "the PPG indicates that it is not possible to impose conditions as the terms of any permission in principle must only include the site location, type of development and amount" (DL ¶24). - **HE6.** "I attach very high substantial weight to the conservation of the Jodrell Bank World Heritage Site, given its international importance" (DL ¶30). "I therefore conclude that the public benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects that would result from this harm" (DL ¶32). ## Planning balance The HE6(4) balance, which decided the appeal. The letter frames it in S5's "substantially outweighed" words, not as a plain weighing of public benefits against harm of considerable importance and weight. The degree of harm is not graded. The plan-led conclusion follows (DL ¶32). ## What made the difference The missing technical and heritage assessment of radio-frequency interference in the Jodrell Bank zone. Location was not a reason for refusal: the S5(1)(j) pass and the limited location harm show the scheme would otherwise have been approvable. ## Transferable points - In the Jodrell Bank consultation zone, a PIP needs a heritage statement on radio-frequency interference at the first stage. The gap cannot be left to conditions or the technical details stage (DL ¶22-25). - A WHS's operational function can be part of its Outstanding Universal Value, so effects on that function are heritage harm (DL ¶18, 25). - Caution: DL ¶13 treats short car journeys as a "sustainable relationship" (DL ¶13), and DL ¶32 imports the S5 formula into HE6(4). Neither is a sound statement of the 2026 tests. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** edge of Somerford next to the Congleton boundary; "strong functional and spatial relationship" with Congleton, services "within a very short journey"; modest scale (DL 28-29) - **TR3: harm (limited weight).** mapped: TR3 not cited; bus, rail and services beyond local-plan distances; car reliance likely, but "relatively short in time and distance, when undertaken by private vehicle", so limited harm (DL 10-15) - **HE8: fail.** no heritage statement assessing radio-frequency interference or other effects on the WHS's OUV; "This omission is a determinative factor" (DL 21-25) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** letter attaches "very high substantial weight" to conservation of the WHS; degree of harm not graded (DL 30) - **HE6(4): fail.** letter concludes "the public benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects", importing the S5 formula into the HE6(4) balance; no HE6(3) statement (DL 31-32) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** up to five homes; no five-year supply (figure not stated); moderate weight "Given the magnitude of development" (DL 29) ## Key facts - Site within the Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope Consultation Zone; the University of Manchester objects in principle across much of the zone because of cumulative radio-frequency interference (DL 19) - Bus stops and railway station beyond the SD2 guide distances (500 m bus, 2 km rail); services beyond 1 km (DL 11) - Self-build claimed but no securing mechanism at PIP stage (DL 31) - Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008864 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/10cc5a9a-84b1-4866-90b5-905d1031aee5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008864.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.