# Land adjacent to Alfred King Close, Shavington - **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 (years):** 3.3 - **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 - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, open-countryside, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, sustainable-location-pass, connectivity-tool, local-plan-countryside-policy-departure, open-market ## 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 - **Plan conflict.** The scheme "would not comply with the requirements of policy PG6 of the CELPS or Policy HOU1 of the SNP … it constitutes a 'departure'" (Report ¶11.6–11.7). Officers quoted Annex A, that materially inconsistent plan policies get very limited weight (¶11.3), but relied on S5 as the material consideration. - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "the proposal would meet one of the exceptions of Policy S5 … development where there is an unmet need … and where the development would be physically well-related to an existing settlement … and be of a scale which can be accommodated" (¶11.8). Supply is 3.3 years (¶11.26). - **Green Gap.** "the Shavington Bypass (A500) already forms a strong physical boundary … the impact on the strategic green gap would be very limited. Therefore, limited weight is given to any perceived conflict with policy PG 5" (¶11.13, ¶11.20). - **TR3: PASS.** "bus stops on Chestnut Avenue a short walk from the site with 2 buses per hour … and footways available to them" (¶11.38). "the site is rated at Local Authority Band B" on the Connectivity Tool (¶11.42). ## 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 - S5(1)(j) is being applied at committee to small (9-unit) market schemes adjoining a settlement boundary, overriding open countryside and green gap policies (¶11.8, ¶12.2). - Loss of open countryside is treated as an "inevitable consequence" of a supply shortfall and carries little weight in the S5 balance (¶12.3). - A Connectivity Tool "Local Authority Band B" rating, together with footways and a two-bus-an-hour service, was treated as enough for TR3 (¶11.42–11.43). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** 3.3-year supply = evidenced unmet need; adjoins settlement boundary, 'rounding off'; scale accommodated by infrastructure - **TR3: pass.** bus stops a short walk (2 buses/hour), footways, NCR 551, schools/medical centre/shop within walking distance; Connectivity Tool Local Authority Band B - **CELPS PG6: conflict.** departure from open countryside policy; officers note Annex A 'materially inconsistent' rule but resolve via S5 - **CELPS PG5: conflict (limited weight).** Strategic Green Gap impact 'very limited' — A500 bypass forms boundary 225 m north; no coalescence - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** homes; small sites built out quickly - **S5(1): pass.** benefits not substantially outweighed; technical matters neutral ## Key facts - Supply 3.3 years (LHN 2,632 dpa); HDT 213% (published 17 Aug 2026) - Adjoins Shavington settlement boundary; in open countryside and Strategic Green Gap - Nine market homes, so below affordable threshold (update report corrected a report error claiming affordable homes) - Bus 2/hour a short walk away; Connectivity Tool "Band B" ## Sources - https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=286&MId=11262 - https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/documents/s136035/26%200640%20FUL.pdf - https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/documents/s136182/26-0640-FUL%20Update%20Report.pdf - https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/documents/g11262/Printed%20minutes%2009th-Sep-2026%2010.00%20Southern%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/cheshireeast-26-0640-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. 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.