Land adjacent Langley Cricket Club, Cock Hall Lane, Langley, Macclesfield (PIP one dwelling)

Decision

dismissed, 28 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: K Mee

Authority

Cheshire East (North West)

Appeal reference

6010253

Application reference

26/0446/PIP

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for one dwelling on a 0.1 ha part of an open field beyond the edge of Langley

Homes

1

Site context

green belt, open countryside, rural lane, settlement edge

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt accepted)

Housing land supply

3.3 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2)

Development plan policies

Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030 (2017) PG 3, SD 1, SD 2, CO 1, MP 1, Table 9.1

Main issues

inappropriate development in the Green Belt; accessibility; VSC

Summary

Permission in principle for one dwelling on a field beyond the edge of Langley, near Macclesfield, in the Green Belt. Grey belt and unmet need (3.3-year supply) were undisputed, but GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed: the walk to the village bus stop is on an unlit, footway-free lane at the national speed limit, and a Connectivity Tool score of 25 came with no useful detail. Small scale did not help. As inappropriate development with significant openness harm, significant housing weight did not clearly outweigh. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework in my decision" (DL ¶5).
• Plan weight. PG 3 is "broadly consistent with the Framework" but predates grey belt, so the inspector gave "greater weight to the Framework in relation to this main issue" (DL ¶9). SD 1 and SD 2 are consistent with TR3, so "I therefore attach only very limited weight to any alleged inconsistency" (DL ¶14). The letter frames plan weight in the 2024 terms "on the basis of their degree of consistency with the Framework" (DL ¶9); incidental.
• TR3 and the plan. "the reference to Policy TR3 does not displace other relevant considerations, including those arising from the development plan" (DL ¶12).
• Route: FAIL. "Beyond the edge of the village, the route lacks footways and street lighting, is subject to the national speed limit and is on an incline. For part of this route, opportunities for pedestrian refuge are limited due to the lack of verges and dense roadside vegetation" (DL ¶17).
• Scale. "Consequently, notwithstanding the small scale of the proposal, future occupiers would be likely to rely heavily on private car use to meet their day-to-day needs" (DL ¶18).
• Connectivity Tool. "little detail has been provided regarding its findings beyond a score of 25 and a colour-coded map" (DL ¶19).
• Comparators distinguished. Other appeals had sites "closer to existing residential development, bus stops, public rights of way or routes subject to lower speed limits" (DL ¶20).
• GB7(1)(g)(iii): FAIL. "the appeal site would not occupy a sustainable location. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to criterion (iii)" (DL ¶23).
• Openness. "significant harm to openness" (DL ¶29).

Planning balance

GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm, plus openness and car dependence, against housing (significant) and other benefits including L3(2)(b) efficient use (moderate). "the benefits, whilst they would be significant, would not clearly outweigh the totality of this harm" (DL ¶35). S5(5): no presumption (DL ¶37).

What made the difference

The first few hundred metres: an unlit, footway-free, national-speed, uphill lane from the site to the village edge, even though the route beyond is lit and footwayed. A bare Connectivity Tool score did not help.

Transferable points

• Even one dwelling fails GB7(1)(g)(iii) where the only walk to the village is an unlit national-speed lane without footways: "notwithstanding the small scale of the proposal" (DL ¶17-18, ¶23).
• A Connectivity Tool score needs its analysis, not just a number and a map (DL ¶19).
• TR3 does not displace local accessibility policies; SD 1 and SD 2 are consistent with it (DL ¶12-14).
• Comparator appeals are distinguished on proximity to houses, bus stops, rights of way and lower speed limits (DL ¶20).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Nearest bus stop about 550 m away in Langley; route unlit, no footways, national speed limit, uphill, limited refuge (DL 17)
• Onward route from the village to Macclesfield has lit footways for its full length (DL 17)
• Macclesfield station about 4.5 km, at the upper end of regular cycling (DL 18)
• Connectivity Tool score 25, with only a colour-coded map (DL 19)
• Supply 3.3 years (Council) or 3.8 (appellant) (DL 32)
• Parties given an opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5)
• Council withdrew its reference to footnote 7 land in the 2024 Framework (DL 6)

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.