Cheshire East Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Cheshire East?
See what counted against selected Green Belt proposals and what the allowed examples establish.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 68 of 211
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 19
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 48
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 55
- of 68 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Cheshire East LPA (53.174025, −2.374643). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Cheshire East Council appeal findings
Why Green Belt proposals failed or passed
The selected examples differ from the matched local set’s outcome mix; allowed appeal 59049 gives only a conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Inappropriateness and lost openness
Limited openness still left harm
One Inspector found limited openness impact, but still found the proposal inappropriate development.
Spatial openness and encroachment
The proposal did not preserve spatial openness and conflicted with safeguarding countryside from encroachment.
Outdoor recreation exception failed
The Inspector concluded the development was not an appropriate outdoor sport and recreation facility.
Helped or needed
Findings in the allowed examples
Policy compliance was recorded
The allowed extension was found not inappropriate, with compliance recorded against cited local policies.
No supporting reasons displayed
The other allowed extract concludes the development was not inappropriate, but does not show why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal call the proposal inappropriate Green Belt development?
- Does it identify lost spatial openness or countryside encroachment?
- What evidence would clearly outweigh the stated Green Belt harm?
The allowed extracts for 41264 and 59049 give conclusions, not their supporting assessment. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
1 November 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
two storey and first floor extension to east elevation, amendment to front gable, canopy over front entrance and new access point.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, with specific regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt according to the provisions of Policy RUR11 of the DPD which attracts full weight as set out above. Further compliance exists with Policy PG3 of the LP.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
25 October 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as the erection of domestic outbuildings, pools, structures and associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and on the character and appearance of the appeal site and area; • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The development would not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would not harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and the area. It would accord with the Development plan and there are no other material considerations to indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, I hereby allow the appeal.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
16 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a first floor rear extension and ground floor rear conservatory to dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: i. Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; ii. The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and iii. Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Its impact on openness in this location would be limited. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm arising from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
3 May 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for enlarged stables and hardstanding pursuant to previous approval 17/3217C (Resubmission of application 22/4841C).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of this appeal are; i) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies, taking into account its effect on the openness of the Green Belt. ii) If the development is inappropriate, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposed development would not be an appropriate facility for outdoor sport and recreation as it would fail to preserve the spatial openness of the Green Belt. It would also conflict with the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The development does not therefore fall within the exception set out in paragraph 154b of the Framework and would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. It would also conflict with Policy PG3 of the CELPS as set out above.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
15 July 2025 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
the relocation of orangery extension and conversion of garage to office.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: i. Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; ii. The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and iii. Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, in addition to the harm arising from the fact that the development would be inappropriate, there is a degree of harm arising from the loss of openness. Consequently, I conclude that the development would not preserve Green Belt openness, albeit in the context of the scale of the proposal, this is limited. 1 Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CELPS) 2010-2030
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2