- Decision
- allowed, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: K Mee
- Authority
- Cheshire East (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6010578
- Application reference
- 26/0676/PIP
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for 5 dwellings (minimum 5, maximum 5)
- Homes
- 5
- Site context
- green belt, open countryside
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, S5(5)
- Development plan policies
- Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 SD 1, SD 2, SE 13, MP 1, PG 1, Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022 ENV16
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; grey belt; access to services; flood risk
Summary
Permission in principle for 5 homes on Green Belt land at Monks Heath, outside any settlement. Grey belt and unmet need were agreed. The contest was the sustainable location limb, which the inspector passed: a bus stop about 391 m away with two staggered hourly services, a range of services within about 500 m, and a usable footpath separated from the road by a verge, though uneven and mostly unlit. A Connectivity Tool score of 33 was treated as above average for this type of location. The scheme was not inappropriate and was allowed under S5(5).
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment. I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework in my decision" (DL ¶7).
- Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS (agreed). "the main parties do not dispute that the site would meet the definition of grey belt land and that the proposal would not undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt" (DL ¶11).
- Unmet need, GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS (agreed). "there is no dispute between the parties that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land" (DL ¶12).
- Sustainable location, GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS. "the footpath remains generally usable and is separated from the carriageway by a substantial grass verge" (DL ¶14). "although each service operates hourly, their staggered timetables provide more frequent opportunities for travel throughout the day including during key commuting periods" (DL ¶15). "Although future occupiers would be likely to make some use of the private car for day-to-day journeys, the evidence indicates that there remains a genuine and realistic choice of transport modes" (DL ¶25).
- Connectivity Tool, TR3(2). "This represents an above average result for a site in this type of location" (DL ¶18).
- Reduced mobility. Concerns about wheelchair users and others with reduced mobility were answered by reference to the site's semi-rural context: "I am not convinced that the condition of the local footpaths along renders the location unsustainable" (DL ¶24).
- GB7 categories are alternatives. "where a development falls within any of the exceptions of Policy GB7, there is no requirement to demonstrate that any of the other exceptions within the Framework would also be met, such as that under Policy GB7(1)(h)" (DL ¶22).
- Openness not re-assessed. "there is no place for a subsequent assessment of the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶21).
- Flood risk, F5: PASS at PIP stage. "the evidence before me does not suggest that the areas affected by surface water flooding would, in principle, prevent the site from accommodating 5 dwellings" (DL ¶30).
Planning balance
S5(5), applying S5(2). "Policy S5(5) of the Framework indicates that, through the application of Policy GB7, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework and applying paragraph S5(2)" (DL ¶33). No adverse effects were found; the benefits (homes in a shortfall, construction and occupation spending) "are not outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶34). No weight word is given to the housing.
What made the difference
A footway for the whole route, kept apart from the traffic by a verge, and timetable evidence for two bus services at a stop under 400 m away. With services within 500 m, the lack of lighting and the uneven surface did not defeat the location. The Connectivity Tool score was low in absolute terms (33) but was judged against scores for nearby approved schemes.
Transferable points
- Limb (iii) passed on a mostly unlit but continuous footpath separated from the carriageway, plus two evidenced hourly bus services with staggered times (DL ¶14–15, ¶18).
- A Connectivity Tool score is read against comparators: 33 was "above average" for the type of location and in line with 29 to 34 at nearby approved schemes (DL ¶18).
- The inspector discounted a concern about wheelchair users because of the semi-rural context (DL ¶24). That reasoning is open to challenge: TR3(1) refers to good accessibility for different users.
- A highway officer's accessibility concerns that stop short of an objection in principle did not prevent a pass (DL ¶25).
- One GB7 category is enough; GB7(1)(h) need not also be shown (DL ¶22).
- At PIP stage, surface water risk on part of a site is left to technical details where the amount of development can avoid it (DL ¶30).
- After a not-inappropriate finding, S5(5) is applied together with S5(2) (DL ¶33).
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)(g)(i) | pass | letter says "Policy GB7(g)"; parties do not dispute that the site is grey belt and would not undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt; inspector concurs after the site visit (DL 10-11) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | letter calls this "criterion b)"; no dispute that the Council cannot show a 5-year supply, so there is unmet need; figure not stated (DL 12) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | bus stop about 391 m away with shelters, two hourly services (87 and 130) on staggered timetables; cafe opposite, convenience store, gym, nursery and others within about 500 m; Alderley Park 1 km by lit footpaths; footpath uneven and mostly unlit but usable and separated from the carriageway by a wide verge (DL 13-18) | |
| TR3 | pass | "a genuine and realistic choice of transport modes"; concern about wheelchair users set aside by reference to the semi-rural context ("I am not convinced that the condition of the local footpaths along renders the location unsustainable"); Highway Officer had accessibility concerns but no objection in principle (DL 24-26) | |
| TR3(2) | pass | Connectivity Tool score 33, "an above average result for a site in this type of location" and comparable to 29-34 at nearby approved schemes (DL 18) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iv) | not-engaged | Golden Rules apply only to major development (DL 19) | |
| GB7(1)(h) | not-engaged | once one GB7 category is met there is no need to show any other, "such as that under Policy GB7(1)(h)" (DL 22) | |
| F5 | pass | Flood Zone 1 with medium surface water risk in one corner; F5(2)(b)(i) and (ii) cited; no evidence that 5 dwellings could not avoid the affected area; flood risk assessment left to technical details (DL 28-31) | |
| S5(5) | pass | not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed, applying S5(2); benefits "not outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL 33-34) |
Key facts
- Site outside any defined settlement, with only Dunvilles Farm opposite (DL 14)
- Nearest bus stop about 391 m; services 87 and 130 to Macclesfield, Knutsford and Manchester Airport, each hourly (DL 15)
- Cafe opposite; gym, restaurant, nursery, petrol station, car wash and vehicle dealership within about 500 m; railway stations reached by bus or cycle (DL 16)
- Pedestrian route uneven, mostly unlit, separated from the carriageway by a substantial grass verge (DL 14)
- Connectivity Tool score 33; nearby approved schemes at Eagles Road and Alderley Park scored 29 to 34 (DL 18)
- Local accessibility standard - CELPS Policy SD 2 Table 9.1 distances (500 m to a bus stop and convenience store, 1 km to a primary school, 2 km to a station) (DL 13)
- Housing land supply figure not stated; no weight word given to the housing benefit (DL 12, 34)
- Costs application by the appellant against the Council is the subject of a separate decision (DL 2)
- Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 7)
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.