Two Oaks, Whitchurch Road (A49), Spurstow

Decision

dismissed, 30 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: MG Garrard

Authority

Cheshire East (North West)

Appeal reference

6009407

Application reference

25/2641/OUT

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline permission (access, layout and scale) for three dwellings on a semi-wooded plot beside the A49

Homes

3

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.3 years

Housing Delivery Test

213%

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

DP3(3), S5(2)

Development plan policies

Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG6, SD1, SD2, SE1, SE3, SE4, SE5, MP1, SADPD 2022 PG10, ENV1, ENV5, ENV6, HOU12

Main issues

location and accessibility; character and trees; living conditions of future occupiers; BNG; ecological connectivity

Summary

Three homes on a wooded plot beside the A49 at Spurstow, a scattered roadside hamlet. Dismissed. The location was car-dependent: there is no continuous footway or lighting and no bus within walking distance, and a previous appeal found the same. The loss of woodland harmed rural character, and it was not shown that the retained trees could survive. The inspector accepted S5(1)(j) because the site is physically close to existing development. But the DP3 conflict without clear justification brought S5(2) into play, and the benefits (substantial weight to housing) were substantially outweighed.

Issues and findings

• Accessibility. "access on foot or by bicycle to local services is constrained by the absence of continuous footway provision in the vicinity of the site and the characteristics of the A49 including no apparent street lighting in the vicinity. Furthermore, there is no public bus service within easy walking distance of the appeal site" (DL ¶13). "future occupiers would be likely to depend on private vehicles for a significant proportion of their daily needs" (DL ¶15).
• Trees and character. "the evidence before me does not satisfactorily establish that the remaining trees could be sustainably retained and managed over the longer term as part of the layout of the development proposed" (DL ¶24).
• Plan-making policy. "H06 is a plan-making policy and paragraph 8 of the Framework confirms that plan-making policies should not be used when making decisions on development proposals" (DL ¶42).
• Neutral factors. "the absence of an objection is not a benefit of the proposal and does not weigh positively in its favour" (DL ¶41).
• DP3. "Where such conflict would occur without clear justification, the Framework advises that development proposals should be refused" (DL ¶48).
• S5. "in meeting some of the Council’s unmet need for housing, the proposal would accord with Policy S5:1.j. However, the Framework’s advice to refuse proposals that conflict with Policy DP3 brings the proposal within the circumstances envisaged by Policy S5.2" (DL ¶51).

Planning balance

S5(1)(j) with the S5(2) trigger. HO7 substantial weight (3.3 years), and modest economic benefits (DL ¶50), against character and tree harm, harm to future occupiers' living conditions and car reliance. "the benefits of approving the development proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects of granting permission" (DL ¶52).

What made the difference

The DP3 conflict: woodland loss and a layout that put retained trees under pressure. It turned S5(1)(j) support into an S5(2) refusal. Poor accessibility also counted against the scheme, although the letter did not carry it into the (j) test.

Transferable points

• A DP3 conflict (context and tree cover) without clear justification is an S5(2) circumstance even where S5(1)(j) is met (DL ¶48, 51).
• Where tree retention is claimed, the layout must show that retained trees can survive long term, including shading and future pressure to prune or remove them (DL ¶22-24, 29).
• HO6 (small sites) is plan-making and cannot be relied on in a decision (DL ¶42).
• A consultee's lack of objection is neutral, not a benefit (DL ¶41).
• HDT 213% did not remove the supply shortfall (3.3 years); HO7 still carried substantial weight (DL ¶46, 50).
• Caution: DL ¶51 accepts S5(1)(j) on physical proximity alone, although DL ¶13-15 find the location car-dependent.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Spurstow is not a PG10 infill village; the gap is not a small gap in a built-up frontage (DL 8-11)
• A49 heavily trafficked, no continuous footway and no apparent street lighting near the site; no public bus within easy walking distance (DL 10, 13)
• Earlier PIP appeal on the site dismissed (APP/R0660/W/21/3271467) for poor connectivity; no material change (DL 14, 45)
• [object Object]
• Absence of objection from consultees is not a benefit (DL 41)
• Council supply 3.3 years; HDT 213% (DL 46)

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.