Appeal 6002211

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 5 dwellings at [site address] , [site address] , Butley Town, Prestbury, Cheshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/2700M.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance1 (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (permission in principle) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second stage (technical details consent) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first stage.

The addresses on the Application Form and Appeal Form are slightly different as they refer to different areas of different towns. I am satisfied that both addresses relate to the same site. The address in the banner above is taken from the Application Form. The description of development in the banner above is also duplicated from the Application Form. However, I have removed the phrase “Permission in principle for ...” as this is not an act of development.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use, and the amount of development permitted. In this instance, the Council does not object to the proposed amount of development. As such, the main issue of the appeal is whether the appeal site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location and the proposed land use. 1 Planning Practice Guidance, Permission in principle, Paragraph: 001 [name]: 58-001-20180615

The appeal site is within the Green Belt. Policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030, July 2017 (CELPS), indicates that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt except for the development specified within the policy. This includes limited infilling in a village. Policy PG10 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, December 2022 (SADPD) identifies infill villages. This Policy explains that these villages have defined infill boundaries and limited infilling will be supported within those boundaries. As Butley Town is not identified as an infill village the proposal would be contrary to SADPD Policy PG10.

Notwithstanding this, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that due weight should be given to policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The Wood judgment2 establishes that whether a proposal should be considered as limited infilling in a village is a matter of planning judgement and is not reliant on defined boundaries. Accordingly, limited weight is given to the conflict between the proposal and SADPD Policy PG10 and it falls to me to consider whether the proposal represents limited infilling in a village.

Interested parties dispute whether the appeal site is located within Butley Town. During my site visit I observed that Butley Town is centred around [address] and extends southward along [address]. The appeal site is the first significant break in development to the south of the village. As such, both [address] and Winsford appear disconnected from Butley Town. I therefore consider that the boundary of the village is between Wetherlam and the appeal site. As such, the appeal site is not within the village. Consequently, the proposal could not comprise of limited infilling in a village and would be contrary to CELPS Policy PG3.

However, CELPS predates the latest version of the Framework. As such, it does not refer to grey belt land. Similar to above, the conflict between the proposal and CELPS Policy PG3 is given limited weight in this instance as it is not consistent with paragraph 155 of the Framework. This paragraph specifies that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate subject to certain criteria. This includes where a proposal would utilise grey belt land and not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt, where there is a demonstrable need for the proposed development, and it would be in a sustainable location. There is a criterion which requires a proposal to meet the ‘[name] where applicable. As the proposal is not major development it is not required to meet the ‘[name].’

The definition of Grey Belt within the Framework includes land that does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework. It also excludes land where the application of policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 of the Framework, other than the Green Belt, would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

The appeal site neither checks the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas nor does it preserve the setting and special character of a historic town. Given the site’s location between Prestbury and Bollington, and close to Macclesfield, it does contribute toward preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. 2 [name] v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Gravesham Borough Council [2014], EWHC 683 (Admin) Nevertheless, it only forms a small part of a large area of countryside. As such, the appeal site only makes a modest contribution toward preventing neighbouring towns merging. Moreover, the application of policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 of the Framework, do not provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. Consequently, the appeal site comprises of grey belt land.

There is no substantive evidence before me that the development of the appeal site would undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across [name]. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land. Accordingly, there is an unmet need for the type of development proposed.

As above, the appeal site is not within the village but immediately next to it. Facilities in Butley Town are limited to a public house, a bus stop, and a post box. As such, occupiers of the proposed dwellings would have to travel further afield to meet their everyday needs. I note there are several facilities in Bollington, including a primary school, a convenience store, and a leisure centre which are a moderate distance from the appeal site. However, to access these facilities, occupiers of the proposed dwellings would need to travel along [site address] . This road is narrow and unlit and is without a continuous footpath. There is also limited space on the side of the road for refuge. Therefore, [site address] does not provide an environment which is conducive to walking or cycling.

There are other facilities available in Prestbury which is only slightly further away from the appeal site than Bollington. Nonetheless, to access these facilities occupiers of the proposed dwellings would need to travel along [address] which is unlit, has no footpath, and is subject to the national speed limit. Similar to [site address] , occupiers of the proposed dwellings would not be encouraged to walk or cycle along [address] to access facilities.

There are facilities further afield in Tytherington which could be accessed via a well-lit continuous footpath to the side of a road. However, these facilities are approximately 2km away. Regardless of the assessment undertaken by the Council in relation to the school bus, I do not consider that future occupiers would regularly walk this route to access facilities due to the distance.

Paragraph 110 of the Framework advises that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable and indicates opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Paragraph 115 of the Framework specifies that it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised. The proposal is not significant development. As such, the first part of paragraph 110 does not strictly apply to the proposal. However, it is still necessary to ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised, whilst also taking account of the rural nature of the appeal site.

It is clear from the above that occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be largely reliant on the use of private motor vehicles to access the facilities necessary to support their everyday needs. However, the appeal site is in a rural location where opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions would be more limited than urban areas. Some journeys could be undertaken via bus and occupiers could safely cycle to Tytherington. Moreover, given the proximity of facilities to the appeal site, journeys undertaken by private motor vehicles would be short and, due to the scale of the proposed development, limited. On balance, I consider that the appeal site is a sustainable location when having regard to its rural location.

In accordance with the Framework, the proposed development of homes in the Green Belt would not be regarded as inappropriate in this instance. As it is not inappropriate development, the proposal would also not have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes of including land within it. This approach is confirmed within the Lee Valley judgment3.

Overall, I conclude that the appeal site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location and the proposed land use. The proposal would comply with CELPS policies MP1, SD1 and SD2. These policies indicate that development should ensure that it is accessible by public transport, amongst other matters.

If 4 or 5 dwellings were constructed within the appeal site, the density of development would be similar to the nearby ribbon development on [address]. Accordingly, an acceptable proposal could be designed that conserves the character and appearance of the area. Likewise, there is sufficient space within the site to ensure that the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers would be preserved, and occupiers of the proposed dwellings would benefit from an acceptable standard of living. Also, suitable conditions could be attached to any resultant planning permission to ensure that the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers are not materially harmed during the construction period.

There is no substantive evidence that the proposed junction arrangement or increase in traffic would be harmful to highway safety. Furthermore, the Council’s Strategic Transport team did not object to the development. Similarly, the appeal site is in [name] 1 and a detailed drainage scheme which would ensure the proposal does not increase flooding elsewhere can be secured at a later stage.

There is no evidence before me that it would not be possible to deliver a biodiversity net gain. The Council has also confirmed the site is not covered by a nature conservation designation. Any concerns with the effect of the proposal on protected species would need to be addressed as part of an application for technical details consent. Moreover, there is no compelling evidence before me that the loss of part of the field would render the remaining field unviable for farming.

I note that a public right of way4 (PROW) runs through the appeal site. However, it could be factored into the layout of the proposed development. Any temporary diversion of the PROW during construction works could also be agreed with the Council. Furthermore, there is no compelling evidence that a modest increase in vehicle movements would have a harmful effect on the safety of users of the PROW. Therefore, this would not be a reason to withhold permission in principle.

I acknowledge a resident’s concern that the notification of the planning application was limited. I have reviewed a list of the people notified and I am satisfied that the Council appropriately notified local residents of the planning application. This is reflected in the number and extent of comments received by local residents. [address] Authority, R(on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council & Anor (Rev 1) [2016] [name] 404 4 Prestbury FP39

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, permission in principle should be granted.