- Decision
- dismissed, 30 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: M Clowes
- Authority
- Cheshire East (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6010213
- Application reference
- 26/0974/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Retention of a shipping container, two timber shelters and stone hardstanding said to be for keeping four alpacas
- Site context
- green belt, open countryside
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(a), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy PG3, SE1, SD2, Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022 GEN1, Disley Neighbourhood Plan 2018 BE2
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness; character and appearance; VSC balance
Summary
Retrospective permission for a shipping container, two timber shelters and stone hardstanding on a Green Belt field at Disley, said to support four alpacas. There was no evidence of an established agricultural enterprise, and signs of camping, wedding and experience uses, so GB7(1)(a) did not apply. The site was accepted as grey belt, but GB7(1)(g)(ii) failed because nothing showed an evidenced unmet need for the development. Inappropriate, with limited openness harm and moderate character harm; no VSC. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the revisions during the appeal process" (DL ¶5).
- Plan weight. "Whilst Policy PG3 predates the Framework's provisions relating to grey belt land, it remains broadly aligned with the Framework's overarching aim of safeguarding the Green Belt. I therefore attach significant weight to the policy" (DL ¶8).
- GB7(1)(a): FAIL. "the appellant must nevertheless demonstrate that the appeal development is genuinely for the purposes of agriculture" (DL ¶11). "diversification supplements, rather than replaces, an established primary use" (DL ¶14). "I saw that the structure referred to as a biosecurity shelter was a tiled shower enclosure" (DL ¶16).
- GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL. "demonstrating that development may be useful or beneficial to an intended activity is not the same as demonstrating an evidenced unmet need for that development" (DL ¶19).
- Openness: limited HARM (DL ¶23). Character: moderate HARM (DL ¶30).
Planning balance
GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm, moderate weight to character harm, limited weight to ecological benefits: "the harm would not clearly be outweighed" (DL ¶34).
What made the difference
Evidence. The appellant had no records of an agricultural enterprise, and the site visit found leisure uses. That defeated both the agriculture exception and the grey-belt route, which needed an evidenced unmet need.
Transferable points
- GB7(1)(a) needs evidence that the development is genuinely for agriculture and reasonably required at its scale; a new holding is not excused from this (DL ¶11–17).
- GB7(1)(g)(ii) needs an evidenced unmet need for the type of development, not just an applicant's statement that it would be useful (DL ¶19).
- A Green Belt policy that predates grey belt can keep significant weight where it stays aligned with the Framework's protective aim (DL ¶8). The grey-belt route was still tested directly.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(a) | fail | alpacas can be livestock (s336), but no evidence of an established agricultural enterprise; site promoted for camping, weddings, kayak hire and alpaca experiences; container and hardstanding not shown to be reasonably required; "biosecurity shelter" was a tiled shower (DL 9-17) | |
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | accepted by the Council; contained position (DL 18) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 18) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | fail | usefulness to an intended activity is not an evidenced unmet need; only the appellant's assertions (DL 19) | |
| Transitional(2) | accord | significant | PG3 predates grey belt but "remains broadly aligned" with the Framework, significant weight (DL 8) |
| GB6(2) | fail | substantial | inappropriate; limited, localised spatial and visual loss of openness; VSC not shown (DL 21-23, 33-34) |
| DP3 | harm | moderate | mapped: container industrial in appearance, extensive hardstanding conspicuously engineered; letter cites "the Framework's design objectives" without a policy code (DL 26-30) |
Key facts
- Four alpacas; no breeding records, wool sales, business plan or other evidence of production (DL 12)
- Bell tent, hot tub and shower cubicle on site but outside the application (DL 3)
- Enforcement investigation into the use of the land is ongoing (DL 4)
- Ecological enhancements claimed but limited evidence; limited weight (DL 31)
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.