# Land to the South of Telegraph Road, Caldy

- **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Evans
- **Authority:** Wirral (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010411
- **Application reference:** PIP/25/01491
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Permission in principle for up to three dwellings on horse-grazing paddocks next to a ribbon of houses on Telegraph Road
- **Homes:** 3
- **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(c), GB6(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Wirral Local Plan 2022-2040 (adopted 2025) WS1
- **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC balance
- **Tags:** PIP, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, infill-rejected, small-scheme, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Permission in principle for up to three houses on paddocks in the Wirral Green Belt, beside a ribbon of houses on Telegraph Road near Caldy. Both parties accepted Caldy as a village and the scheme as limited, but the inspector found the ribbon visually separate from the village and the site bounded by houses on one side only, so it was not limited infilling in a village under GB7(1)(c). Inappropriate development with modest openness harm; limited housing weight; no VSC. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "Both parties have had an opportunity to comment. My decision has been made on the basis of the revised Framework" (DL ¶5).
- **GB7(1)(c): FAIL.** "the ribbon of development appears distinctly separate to the village" (DL ¶9). "As a result, development of the site would not appear as an infill development" (DL ¶10). "The appeal site before me has residential development to just one side of the site only" (DL ¶19).
- **Openness: HARM.** "this would be modest given the small scale of the proposal. Nevertheless, the proposal conflicts with the purposes of the Green Belt and substantial weight should be given to the harm" (DL ¶15).
- **Housing: limited weight.** No shortfall evidence and dwelling types unknown (DL ¶16).
- **Weight slip.** The balance says the harm "attracts significant weight, in line with Policy GB 6 of the Framework" (DL ¶21), where DL ¶15 and GB6 say substantial. Immaterial.

## Planning balance
GB6(2) VSC. "Other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt" (DL ¶21).

## What made the difference
The visual break between the Telegraph Road ribbon and the main village, and the lack of houses on both sides. The grey-belt route was not argued.

## Transferable points
- GB7(1)(c) infill needs the site to read as part of the village and as a gap within it; a ribbon visually separated by green space and trees is not the village (DL ¶9–11).
- Development on one side only is not infilling, and earlier infill decisions with houses on both sides are distinguishable (DL ¶19).
- An accessible location with footway and lighting is neutral, not a benefit, in a Green Belt VSC balance (DL ¶17).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(c): fail.** Caldy agreed to be a village and the scheme limited, but the Telegraph Road ribbon reads as separate from the village behind green space and mature trees, and the site has houses on one side only; not infilling (DL 8-12, 19)
- **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** modest visual and spatial openness harm; substantial weight at DL 15 but "significant weight" at DL 21; VSC not shown (DL 13-15, 21)
- **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** no evidence of a supply shortfall; dwelling types unknown at PIP stage (DL 16)

## Key facts
- Footway and streetlights along Telegraph Road; site described as accessible; neutral (DL 9, 17)
- Comparator infill appeals (APP/V1505/W/21/3283535, APP/F2360/W/20/3244797) had development on both sides (DL 19)
- Grey belt route under GB7(1)(g) not argued

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010411
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ef347da6-5e6b-461e-bbe8-f9eecb8d946a

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010411.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.