Appeal 6002554

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 6 dwellings at [site address] , [site address] , Wardsend, Poynton, Cheshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1661/PIP.

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.

During the determination of the planning application, the Council amended the description of development. The appellant has agreed to this change. Therefore, the description of development in the banner above is the description as amended by the Council and is taken from the Decision Notice.

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 the site’s location.

The appeal site is in the Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent 1 Planning Practice Guidance, Permission in principle, Paragraph: 001 [name]: 58-001-20180615 urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

Policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030, July 2017 (CELPS) indicates that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate, except for the development specified within the policy. The exceptions include limited infilling in a village.

The appellant contends that the proposal would be limited infilling in a village. However, they accept that the Council do not agree and that an inspector previously concluded that a proposal for residential development at the appeal site did not constitute limited infilling in a village. Consequently, they do not forward an argument on this ground. Overall, the proposal would not comply with any of the exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt specified within CELPS Policy PG3. As such, the proposal would be contrary to this Policy. Moreover, there is no evidence that the appeal site is within an infill boundary. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy PG10 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, December 2022.

Notwithstanding this, CELPS predates the latest version of the Framework. Therefore, it does not refer to grey belt land. Paragraph 155 of the Framework advises that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where it would utilise grey belt land, amongst other matters. The Framework is clear that due weight should be given to policies according to their degree of consistency with it. Given CELPS Policy PG3 is not consistent with the exception to inappropriate development specified within paragraph 155 of the Framework, I ascribe limited weight to the conflict with this Policy.

Part (a) of paragraph 155 of the Framework indicates that the development of homes would not be inappropriate where it would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area. The Framework’s definition of Grey Belt includes land which does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. The definition also excludes land where the application of policies relating to areas or assets in footnote 7 would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

There is residential development either side of the appeal site and commercial development behind it. Moreover, the appeal site is not within a large built-up area. Consequently, the appeal site does not contribute to checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. Also, the appeal site is located close to Poynton but a significant distance from Macclesfield. Accordingly, it only makes a negligible contribution toward preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another.

The Framework does not define historic towns. Interested parties contend that Poynton has a distinct rural character, including longstanding agricultural layouts. The appeal site may have previously been used for agricultural purposes, but it is now a small parcel of land that is separated from agricultural land. It is also situated away from Poynton. Even if I were to agree that Poynton is an historic town and is characterised by longstanding agricultural layouts, the appeal site would only make a minor contribution to its setting and special character.

In addition to the above, the application of policies relating to areas or assets in footnote 7 of the Framework would not provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. Consequently, the appeal site is Grey Belt. Furthermore, there is no cogent evidence that the proposed development would undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt in [name]. Therefore, the appeal site complies with part (a) of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land. Consequently, there is an unmet need for housing in the area, and the proposal would comply with part (b) of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Part (c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework requires development to be in a sustainable location having regard to paragraphs 110 and 115. These paragraphs indicate that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth; opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas; and it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised; amongst other matters.

The spatial strategy outlined in CELPS seeks to direct development to built-up areas and encourages the redevelopment or re-use of previously developed land. The appeal site is not within a built-up area and is not previously developed land. Notwithstanding this, the appeal site is in proximity to Poynton where there are several facilities which would support the everyday needs of future occupiers of the proposed development. For example, there is a play area within 500m of the appeal site and there is both a primary and a secondary school within 1km.

To access these facilities future occupiers would either have to walk along [site address] or via a public right of way. [site address] is a narrow country lane which does not benefit from a continuous footpath or street lighting. There is very little space either side of the road for safe refuge for pedestrians. In particular [site address] Bridge is very narrow and situated close to a bend in the road so there is limited visibility of oncoming traffic. Considering all of these factors, future occupiers would not be encouraged to walk along [site address] into Poynton. The alternative route via the public right of way is across a field and is unlit. As such, it does not represent a realistic alternative to [site address] for everyday journeys during inclement weather or at night.

However, the topography of the area is relatively flat. Future occupiers would only have to travel a short distance along [site address] until they reach [address], which is a lit suburban road that forms part of Poynton. As such, future occupiers could cycle into Poynton. In addition, there is a bus stop in proximity to the appeal site which accommodates regular services to Poynton Town Centre. Despite the appeal site’s rural location, future occupiers would be able to utilise sustainable transport modes to access facilities. Also, given the proximity of facilities a lot of journeys undertaken by private motor vehicles would be short. I therefore consider that the appeal site is in a sustainable location and the proposal would conform with part (c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Part (d) of paragraph 155 of the Framework refers to the ‘[name]. These rules only apply to major development, whether it involves the provision of housing on land released from the Green Belt through local plan preparation or subject to a planning application. As the proposal is not for major development as defined by the Framework, part (d) is not pertinent to the appeal proposal.

As the proposal is in accordance with paragraph 155 of the Framework, it would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Given this finding, it follows that the proposal would not be harmful to the openness or the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

Overall, I conclude that the appeal site is suitable for residential development having regard to the site’s location. The proposal would comply with CELPS policies MP1, SD1, and SD2, where they indicate that residential development should provide access to a range of public transport, and key services and amenities, amongst other matters.

I acknowledge that a previous appeal2 for residential development at the appeal site was dismissed. However, that decision predates the latest version of the Framework and the introduction of grey belt land. Accordingly, my approach is consistent with the previous Inspector, but the outcome is different due to a change in national policy.

The Council has highlighted an appeal decision3 for a similar development which is located elsewhere in [name]. Each proposal is assessed against the development plan taking account of material considerations, which would include the relationship between each site and the nearest facilities. As that site is away from the appeal site, that decision does not alter my assessment on the appeal proposal.

Concerns have been raised with regard to the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; protected species; flooding; and the living conditions of both the neighbouring occupiers and future occupiers of the development. These are all matters which can be addressed as part of the detailed proposals which would be subject to an application for technical details consent.

There is a public right of way4 (PROW) which runs through the site. I am satisfied that this could be accommodated within the proposed development. Alternatively, the PROW may be diverted but this would be subject to a separate application.

The proposed development would lead to a modest increase in vehicle movements along [site address] , which has already experienced a recent increase in traffic. Nonetheless, there is no substantive evidence that this would lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

I acknowledge that some of the road users may be school children. Accordingly, the protected characteristic of age may be relevant to people using the road. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty as set out within the Equality Act 2010. However, there is no cogent evidence that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on road users, including school children. As such, allowing the appeal would not be contrary to the 3 aims of the Duty, which are to eliminate discrimination against persons with a protected characteristic, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons, and fostering good relations between them and others. With this in mind, I conclude that it is both proportionate and necessary to allow the appeal. 2 Appeal Ref. APP/R0660/W/24/3339806 3 Appeal Ref. APP/R0660/W/25/3372870 4 Adlington Public Footpath 50

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. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed and permission in principle should be granted.