- Decision
- approved, 19 August 2026
- Decided by
- Council planning committee: Cheshire East Northern Planning Committee
- Authority
- Cheshire East (North West)
- Application reference
- 25/2053/FUL
- Procedure
- committee
- Development
- 68-bed care home (residential, nursing, dementia) on site of former nursing home destroyed by fire
- Homes
- 68
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge, PDL, valued landscape
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Housing land supply
- 3.3 years
- Housing Delivery Test
- 262%
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB6(2), GB7(1)(g)(iv), GB8, GB7(1)(e), TR3
- Development plan policies
- Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG3, SC4, SD2, SADPD HOU1, HOU2, GEN1, Handforth Neighbourhood Plan H11
- Main issues
- grey belt; Golden Rules for C2; sustainable location; VSC
Summary
A 68-bed care home on the enclosed, previously developed site of a burnt-out nursing home on the edge of Handforth, decided two days after the new Framework was published. Officers found the site grey belt, with unmet need met and a sustainable location. They also treated the care home as "major development involving the provision of housing", so it had to meet the Golden Rules. No affordable housing was offered, so it failed GB7(1)(g)(iv) and was inappropriate. Officers then found very special circumstances, and the committee approved. The update report added a Connectivity Tool score (59–62%) and said the 2026 NPPF made no material change.
Issues and findings
- PDL limb (e): FAIL. There would be "substantial harm to Green Belt openness", following the 2021 appeal (Report ¶10.1–10.8).
- Grey belt: PASS. "The site is largely enclosed on all sides, with residential development to the east, woodland to the west and south" (¶10.21). "It would be a wedge shape of development alongside a built-up area and would not be considered an incongruous pattern of development" (¶10.24). The 2015 strategic assessment found a "major contribution" for the wider parcel. Officers distinguished it because the site "is a relatively small part of a gap" (¶10.29).
- Unmet need: PASS. "there is a clear and demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed" (¶10.52). The Council's care commissioner "does not actively support the application … however at present there is not sufficient data to formally object" (¶10.49).
- Sustainable location: PASS. "Sagars Road from the west side of the site entrance has pavements and street lighting. The site is clearly within an area that has walkable access to key services" (¶10.56). Update report ¶1.5: "This tool indicates a sustainability score of 59%-62% for the site. Nationally this is below average for public transport access and below average overall (excluding driving) … it is comparably well connected for a rural edge location."
- Golden Rules: FAIL. "As a major housing proposal, these rules would therefore apply. No affordable housing contributions have been offered, as such the proposal does not meet the Golden Rules" (¶10.57). The update report (¶3.2) accepted that "It is not considered that the application of affordable housing contributions could in this case fully meet the CIL tests", because the Council has no model for care homes. Even so, the Green Belt conclusion stayed "inappropriate".
Planning balance
GB6(2) VSC. Against: substantial weight to Green Belt harm, including loss of openness and harm to purposes (¶11.1). For: significant weight to specialist housing need, supply contribution and release of general-needs housing (¶11.3), plus employment and the PDL character. "It is what might be considered to be a very good example of a grey belt site" (¶11.4). "the harm to the Green Belt is considered to be clearly outweighed by the specific physical characteristics of the site, its grey belt status, the introduction of much needed specialist accommodation … Very special circumstances are therefore considered to exist" (¶11.5).
What made the difference
Failing the Golden Rules did not stop the scheme. It moved it from GB7(1)(g) into VSC, where grey belt status was then counted as a consideration in favour. The site's enclosure and PDL character, the previous nursing-home use and an undisputed care-bed needs assessment did the rest. An objector would have needed evidence that care-bed need was already met by the pipeline (the report mentions 414 beds in the pipeline) to weaken the key benefit.
Transferable points
- Cheshire East treats a C2 care home as "major development involving the provision of housing" for GB7(1)(g)(iv)/GB8 (¶10.57). Where GB8 affordable housing cannot lawfully be secured, the scheme still falls to VSC.
- Grey belt status can itself count towards VSC when a GB7(1)(g) limb fails (¶11.5).
- Connectivity Tool benchmark: 59–62% at a suburban/rural edge with lit footways and a station at 750 m, "below average" nationally but accepted as sustainable (Update ¶1.5). Compare Bath Press at 80–82 (bathnes-25-03592-FUL).
- The officer update said the new S5 includes "redevelopment of previously developed land" as an approvable category outside settlements (Update ¶1.3), but S5(5) excludes Green Belt, so it was not relied on.
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)(e) | fail | mostly PDL but substantial harm to openness (as found on 2021 appeal for 26 dwellings) | |
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | 2015 study parcel HF01 'major' contribution, but site enclosed by housing and woodland, wedge not finger → (a) moderate; small part of Handforth–Wilmslow gap → (b) moderate; Handforth not historic → (d) nil | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | 3.3-year supply plus applicant's care-bed needs assessment (569-bed undersupply by 2030) not disputed by commissioner | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | lit footway on Sagars Road; shops/bus 0.7 km, health centre 600 m, Handforth station 750 m; Connectivity Tool 59-62% (below national average, 'comparably well connected for a rural edge location') | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iv) | fail | care home treated as major development involving provision of housing; no affordable housing offered → Golden Rules failed → inappropriate | |
| GB8 | fail | update report — affordable contribution for care home could not meet CIL tests, so none required, yet GB8 non-compliance left scheme inappropriate | |
| GB6(2) | pass | substantial | VSC found — grey belt status, enclosed PDL site, specialist housing need (significant weight), employment |
| HO9 | benefit | significant | specialist dementia care need, plus contribution to supply and release of general housing |
Key facts
- Previously developed site of a former nursing home, largely enclosed by woodland and the Knowle Park estate
- 2021 appeal for 26 dwellings dismissed as inappropriate (substantial harm to openness, sprawl)
- Connectivity Tool score 59-62% cited in the update report as TR3(2) evidence
- Supply 3.3 years; HDT 262%
- Report written under the Dec 2024 NPPF; update report re-ran it under Aug 2026 NPPF the day after publication, with no change to the recommendation
Sources
- moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk
- moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk
- moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk
- moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk
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.