Land adjacent to Alfred King Close, Shavington

application 26/0640/FUL·Cheshire East·9 September 2026approved
Decision
approved, 9 September 2026
Decided by
Council planning committee: Cheshire East Southern Planning Committee (unanimous)
Authority
Cheshire East (North West)
Application reference
26/0640/FUL
Procedure
committee
Development
Demolition of storage buildings, 9 dwellings, access, parking and landscaping
Homes
9
Site context
open countryside, settlement edge
Green Belt
No
Housing land supply
3.3 years
Housing Delivery Test
213%
Framework applied
August 2026 NPPF
Determinative policies
S5(1)(j)(i), HO7, TR3, Transitional(2)
Development plan policies
Cheshire East LPS 2017 PG5 (Strategic Green Gap), PG6 (Open Countryside), SADPD HOU1, HOU16, Shavington NP HOU1, HOU2
Main issues
S5(1)(j); open countryside/green gap policy conflict; sustainable location

Summary

Nine market houses on a storage yard and field adjoining Shavington's settlement boundary, in open countryside and a Strategic Green Gap. The scheme conflicted with local plan and neighbourhood plan countryside policies. Officers put it through S5(1)(j): the 3.3-year supply is an evidenced unmet need and the site is physically well related to the village. Applying the "substantially outweighed" test, they recommended approval, and the committee approved unanimously. This is an early committee example of S5(1)(j) being used as a gateway for a small edge-of-village scheme outside the Green Belt.

Issues and findings

Planning balance

S5(1) "substantially outweighed". For: substantial weight to new homes (HO7). The update report corrected the report, which had also claimed affordable homes (there are none). Economic benefits are counted. Against: loss of open countryside, called "an inevitable consequence given the Council's housing land supply position", and limited weight to the Green Gap conflict. Technical matters are neutral. "The benefits of this development would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (¶12.11).

What made the difference

The site is physically contained: rounding off an existing estate, no further north than the existing edge, with a bypass beyond. It also has real footway and bus access. With a 3.3-year supply, S5(1)(j) made countryside and gap policies subordinate. Refusal would have needed a genuine adverse effect assessed against national decision-making policies, which the report did not find.

Transferable points

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

PolicyFindingWeightNote
S5(1)(j)(i)pass3.3-year supply = evidenced unmet need; adjoins settlement boundary, 'rounding off'; scale accommodated by infrastructure
TR3passbus stops a short walk (2 buses/hour), footways, NCR 551, schools/medical centre/shop within walking distance; Connectivity Tool Local Authority Band B
CELPS PG6conflictdeparture from open countryside policy; officers note Annex A 'materially inconsistent' rule but resolve via S5
CELPS PG5conflictlimitedStrategic Green Gap impact 'very limited' — A500 bypass forms boundary 225 m north; no coalescence
HO7benefitsubstantialhomes; small sites built out quickly
S5(1)passbenefits not substantially outweighed; technical matters neutral

Key facts

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.