# 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 (years):** 3.3 - **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 - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, connectivity-tool, small-scheme, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-wording-slip, local-policy-consistency ## 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 - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** undisputed; would not undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** undisputed (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** no five-year supply (3.3 years Council, 3.8 appellant) (DL 11, 32) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** bus stop about 550 m in the village; route beyond the village edge unlit, no footways, national speed limit, incline, little refuge; supermarkets, GP and station (about 4.5 km) in Macclesfield; heavy car reliance notwithstanding small scale (DL 12-23) - **TR3: fail.** TR3(2) Connectivity Tool score of 25 with little detail given no weight; TR3 does not displace development plan considerations; local accessibility policies SD 1 and SD 2 broadly consistent with TR3 (DL 12-14, 19) - **GB8: not-engaged.** Golden Rules apply to major development only (DL 24) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; significant openness harm from building on an open field; benefits significant but VSC not shown (DL 25-26, 29, 35) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** one dwelling against a significant shortfall (DL 32) - **L3(2)(b): benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling on 0.1 ha an efficient use of land; moderate weight with economic, social and BNG benefits (DL 33) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** presumption does not apply to inappropriate Green Belt development without VSC (DL 37) ## 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 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010253 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3d44fb69-affb-4123-a5b3-a48f46666513 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010253.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.