Appeal 6004286

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs has been made by the appellants against the Council. This matter is subject to a separate decision.

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

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. These considerations, whilst appearing as limited, can encompass various issues which relate to these matters. The PPG does not explicitly state what should or should not be considered within these considerations.

The Council’s decision notice notes that permission in principle was refused due to the absence of sufficient information in relation to ground conditions and any risks arising from land instability and contamination. As such, the location and land use are considered to be inappropriate for the development proposed.

The main issue therefore is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with specific consideration given to the risks arising from land instability and contamination.

The PPG notes that a decision on whether to grant an application through the permission in principle route must be made in accordance with relevant policies within the development plan, unless material considerations, including the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), indicate otherwise.

Policy SE12 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 states that proposals for new housing will not normally be supported where existing pollution levels are considered unacceptable. Where a development may be affected by land contamination or instability, applicants are required to submit a report assessing the nature and extent of any such issues, along with the potential implications for the proposed development. The policy further confirms that, in most circumstances, development will only be regarded as acceptable where it can be demonstrated that any identified contamination or land stability concerns can be appropriately mitigated and remediated.

Paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that planning decisions must ensure that a site is suitable for its proposed use, having regard to ground conditions and any risks associated with land instability or contamination. The Framework also emphasises that decision‐makers should ensure new development is appropriate for its location, particularly in relation to the potential effects of pollution on human health.

The appeal is supported by a [name] with [name] (prepared by [name], dated September 2025). The survey identifies, using Environment Agency records, a single entry for a closed landfill located on the front portion of the appeal site. The report notes some uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the plotted location of this record. The entry relates to the deposition of inert waste between 1985 and 1992.

The appellant states that the site has been in their family’s ownership since the 1940s and that no waste has ever been deposited on the land. However, this anecdotal assertion is not, in itself, sufficient to discount the potential for contamination arising from the recorded landfill. The proposal seeks permission for up to two dwellings, which constitute a sensitive end use. In the interests of safeguarding human health, any potential contamination must therefore be addressed with the utmost care. Accordingly, the survey recommends that an intrusive ground investigation be undertaken to establish the actual ground conditions and determine whether contamination is present within the appeal site.

Having considered the submitted survey alongside the relevant local and national policy requirements, I find that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the appeal site is suitable, in principle, for residential development. This is due to the potential risk arising from land instability and contamination. The proposal seeks the provision of housing, which constitutes a sensitive end use where any contamination, if not properly addressed, could have significant implications for human health. On the basis of the evidence before me, it has not been demonstrated that the site is suitable for the proposed use, even at a principle level, given the unresolved concerns relating to possible contamination or land instability that have been identified. Consequently, it remains unclear whether the site is capable of safely accommodating the development proposed.

Notwithstanding the guidance set out in the PPG and the requirements of both national and local policy, the appellant has referred to two previous appeal decisions in support of the contention that matters relating to land contamination should be addressed at the technical details consent stage. However, a review of those decisions indicates that the circumstances in each case differ materially from those relevant to this appeal. In particular, the potential presence of contamination or land instability had not been explicitly or specifically identified at the permission in principle stage in those examples. By contrast, in this appeal, the available records indicate a possible source of contamination and land instability, and the appellant’s own submitted survey recommends that further intrusive investigation is required. These circumstances therefore distinguish the present case from the decisions cited by the appellant.

To conclude, the proposed development would conflict with Policy SE 12 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 and the provisions of the Framework, the requirements of which have been outlined above.

In consideration of the amount of development, the Council note that two dwellings could be accommodated in a way that would respect the character of the area and meet the relevant standards. During my site visit, I noted that up to two dwellings could be accommodated in this space, the detailed design of which would be provided at the technical details consent stage.

The evidence indicates that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework advises that where the development plan policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, planning permission for new housing should be granted unless: 11d)i. the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of importance provides a strong reason for the development proposed or 11d)ii. the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

In an era of national, and in this instance local housing shortages, the provision of up to two units would assist in increasing the housing supply across [name]. This matter attracts limited, but positive weight in favour of the proposal. However, this benefit must be weighed against the identified conflict with the development plan. The harm arising from the proposed development with regard to its location and proposed use would be unacceptable. This attracts significant weight in my assessment of this scheme. The harms identified would conflict with the Framework and the development plan when read as a whole.

The appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.