- Decision
- dismissed, 28 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Andrew Fulford
- Authority
- Cheshire West and Chester (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6012304
- Application reference
- 25/01259/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Two four-bedroom detached dwellings on a field at the end of ribbon development
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- open countryside, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 1.6 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), TR3, N2
- Development plan policies
- Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan Part 1 2015 STRAT 1, STRAT 2, STRAT 9, Local Plan Part 2 2019 DM 3, DM 19, DM 45, Whitegate and Marton Neighbourhood Plan Policies 1, 4
- Main issues
- suitable location and accessibility; trees; housing mix; character and appearance
Summary
Two large houses on a field at the end of ribbon development on a rural lane about 1 km from Cuddington and Sandiway, with 1.6 years' supply. Dismissed: the ribbon is not a settlement, so S5(1)(j)(i) failed and S5(4) applied. The walking routes (a 40 mph lane with no footway and unlit sections, or secluded unlit footpaths) were not realistic. Unassessed harm to three mature trees and a mix of 4-bed homes against neighbourhood plan need added to the harm.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have been amended. As a result, parties have been provided with an opportunity to make further submissions" (DL ¶2).
- Route: FAIL. "There is a 40mph speed limit along Dalefords Lane meaning there would be relatively fast-moving traffic. Taking all these factors account it is considered that this route would not be a realistic for many future residents especially a parent with young children or those with mobility issues" (DL ¶9). Footpaths: "The absence of lighting combined with the isolated nature of the routes would deter regular use by future occupiers" (DL ¶10).
- Not isolated, but not sustainable. "the proximity of other built form is not a measure of sustainability" (DL ¶11).
- Settlement / (j)(i): FAIL. The ribbon "is no more than a scattered group of houses outside a predominantly built-up area. Consequently, this does not meet the Framework's definition of a settlement" (DL ¶29).
- Trees: FAIL for lack of an arboricultural assessment (DL ¶17).
Planning balance
S5(4): limited housing and economic benefits, very limited BNG, against TR3 and N2 conflicts given significant weight. "The benefits would therefore not substantially outweigh the identified adverse effects and there are therefore no exceptional circumstances in this case" (DL ¶33).
What made the difference
The route to the village: 1 km of fast, unlit lane with no footway, and footpath alternatives that are dark and secluded. The site being next to houses did not make it a settlement or a sustainable location.
Transferable points
- A 40 mph lane with no footway and unlit sections is not a realistic walking route "for many future residents especially a parent with young children or those with mobility issues" (DL ¶9).
- Unlit, secluded public footpaths deter regular use, especially in winter darkness and for people travelling alone (DL ¶10).
- Proximity to other houses is not a measure of sustainability (DL ¶11).
- A ribbon of scattered houses is not an Annex B settlement, so (j)(i) fails if the nearest real settlement is 1 km away (DL ¶29).
- A station 3.5 km away with no evidenced sustainable access does not help (DL ¶12).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:settlement | fail | adjacent ribbon development is "no more than a scattered group of houses outside a predominantly built-up area", not a settlement (DL 29) | |
| S5(1)(j)(i) | fail | supply 1.6 years engages (j), but nearest settlement Cuddington and Sandiway about 1 km away, so not physically well related (DL 29) | |
| S5(4) | fail | no exceptional circumstances; benefits do not substantially outweigh (DL 30, 33) | |
| TR3 | fail | significant | 1 km along 40 mph lane with no footway and long unlit sections; alternative public footpaths unlit, undulating and secluded; station 3.5 km; not realistic for parents with young children or those with mobility issues (DL 9-12, 33) |
| N2 | fail | significant | no arboricultural assessment; new accesses and hardstanding in RPAs of three mature frontage trees; cannot be left to condition (DL 15-18, 33) |
| HO7 | benefit | limited | tempered because no evidenced need for 4-bed homes (NP Policy 1 seeks 1-3 beds) (DL 19-22, 31) |
| DP3 | pass | rounds off ribbon, fits street scene; limited localised openness harm (DL 24-26) | |
| Transitional(2) | neutral | STRAT 1 accessibility policy "broadly aligns" with the Framework (DL 8) |
Key facts
- Supply 1.6 years (DL 29)
- Dalefords Lane 40 mph, no designated footway, significant unlit sections; about 1 km to Cuddington and Sandiway (DL 5, 9)
- Public footpath alternatives similar distance, unlit, undulating, secluded (DL 10)
- Cuddington station about 3.5 km, no evidence of sustainable access (DL 12)
- Adjacent garage conversions approved (24/00896/FUL, 24/00897/FUL) not comparable (DL 13)
- BNG over 10% claimed but relies on trees surviving; very limited weight (DL 32)
- Parties given opportunity to make further submissions on the 2026 Framework (DL 2)
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.