# Land south of Coppice Road, Higher Poynton - **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Mee - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010471 - **Application reference:** 25/4766/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 to 7 dwellings on a 0.33 ha greenfield roadside parcel - **Homes:** 7 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3(2), S5(5) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG3, PG6, SD1, SD2, Poynton-with-Worth NP 2019 HOU1 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, S5(5) balance - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, connectivity-tool, continuous-lit-footway, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, village-not-large-built-up-area, parcel-vs-site, s5-5-substantially-outweighed, not-inappropriate ## Summary PIP for up to 7 dwellings on a Green Belt field edge opposite a ribbon of houses between Poynton and Higher Poynton. Allowed. The site was grey belt because Higher Poynton is a village, not a large built-up area. It passed limb (iii) on a continuous lit 30 mph footway to Poynton, regular buses, and a Connectivity Tool score of 52. Not inappropriate, so S5(5) favoured approval. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties given the opportunity to comment; 2026 version applied (DL ¶5). - **Grey belt, purpose (a): PASS.** "the PPG makes clear that villages such as Higher Poynton should not be regarded as large built-up areas … the site cannot reasonably be regarded as being adjacent to, or near to, a large built-up area" (DL ¶13). Purpose (c) "is not relevant to the assessment of whether land constitutes grey belt" (DL ¶12). "the assessment of Green Belt purposes should focus on the land subject to the proposal and its specific role, rather than the wider parcel within which it sits" (DL ¶15). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS** (DL ¶16). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS.** "connected to Poynton … by a continuous lit footway along a road subject to a 30mph speed limit. Whilst the nearest shops are just over one mile away and the route includes a modest incline; it nevertheless provides a safe and attractive opportunity for walking and cycling" (DL ¶18). Buses "regular daytime and early evening services" (DL ¶19). "This is further demonstrated by the use of the Connectivity Tool as recommended within Policy TR3(2) of the Framework … the resulting overall score is 52 which, for a rural town and fringe location, is above average" (DL ¶20). - **Openness not assessed** once not inappropriate: "there is no place for a subsequent assessment of the effect … on the openness" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance S5(5): "proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects". Benefits "not outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶36–37). Out-of-date countryside policy PG6 given very limited weight (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference Route quality and public transport. More than a mile to the shops was acceptable because the whole way is a continuous lit footway on a 30 mph road, and the buses were evidenced as regular. The Connectivity Tool score corroborated this. Contrast Chedworth (PINS-6009966) and Branford Wells (PINS-6010313), which had unlit lanes without footways. ## Transferable points - The Connectivity Tool (TR3(2)) is accepted as corroborative evidence; a score of 52 is "above average" for a rural town and fringe location (DL ¶20). - A distance over 1 mile to shops is not fatal where the route is a continuous lit footway at 30 mph (DL ¶18). - Villages are not "large built-up areas" for purpose (a) (PPG) (DL ¶13). - Grey belt is judged on the site, not the wider Green Belt assessment parcel (DL ¶15). - Once GB7 is met, there is no separate openness assessment and no VSC (DL ¶23). - Local plan GB policies lacking a grey belt exception are inconsistent with the Framework (DL ¶9). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** disputed on purpose (a); Higher Poynton is a village, not a large built-up area; Poynton 500 m away with sparse, discontinuous development between; purpose (c) irrelevant to grey belt (DL 12-14) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** assess the site, not the wider GB assessment parcel (PY21 "major contribution") (DL 14-15) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** no 5YHLS (undisputed) (DL 16) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** meets CELPS SD2 Table 9.1 thresholds except a convenience store; continuous lit footway at 30 mph to Poynton (shops just over 1 mile); regular daytime and early-evening buses; Connectivity Tool score 52, above average for rural town and fringe (DL 17-20) - **TR3(2): pass.** first recorded appellate use of the Connectivity Tool, supporting (not deciding) the conclusion (DL 20) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** not major (DL 21) - **PG3 / PG6 (CELPS): accord (very-limited weight).** PG3 inconsistent (no grey belt exception); PG6 out of date, materially inconsistent, so very limited weight (DL 9, 35) - **S5(5): pass.** not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed; not outweighed (DL 36-37) ## Key facts - 0.33 ha greenfield at the northern edge of a larger field; ribbon of dwellings opposite links Poynton to Higher Poynton - Poynton c. 500 m away; nearest shops just over one mile on a continuous lit footway (30 mph), modest incline - Buses regular daytime and early evening, reduced Sundays; connect to Poynton rail station and Stockport bus station - Connectivity Tool overall score 52 (above average for "rural town and fringe") - GB Assessment Update 2015 parcel PY21 "major contribution" set aside as a wider-parcel assessment ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010471 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e64b72e2-95aa-4518-8a48-4c99b58f4ff8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010471.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.