An Alderley Edge grey belt appeal has allowed outline planning permission for up to nine homes after an Inspector disagreed with Cheshire East Council about the contribution of an enclosed Green Belt site to unrestricted sprawl.
Inspector N Unwin issued the decision on 27th October 2026 for land adjoining Jenny Heyes at Heyes Lane, Alderley Edge. The committee had refused the application despite an officer recommendation supporting it. The Inspector allowed the planning appeal but refused the developer’s separate application for costs.
I would read this grey belt appeal as a reminder that the current National Planning Policy Framework still requires a site-specific assessment. Its containment on three sides mattered here, but winning the appeal did not, on its own, establish that councillors acted unreasonably.
Why the grey belt appeal site qualified in Alderley Edge
The proposal concerns an undeveloped parcel adjoining Alderley Edge. The land is within the Green Belt and outside the settlement boundary, but built development lies to its north, south and west. A field lies to the east, with boundary features along that edge.
Under policy GB7(1)(g) of the August 2026 Framework, housing on grey belt land is not inappropriate Green Belt development if the additional tests are met. These include whether the wider Green Belt is fundamentally undermined, whether there is demonstrable unmet need and whether the location is sustainable.
Inspector Unwin considered the contribution to the Green Belt purpose of checking unrestricted sprawl. The council had argued that an undeveloped eastern edge meant the land strongly served that purpose. The Inspector attached greater significance to the buildings on the other three sides and the ability of surrounding development to contain the site.
The decision says the appeal land does not strongly contribute to purpose (a)
. The council did not contend that the plot strongly contributed to the other relevant purposes, concerning the merging of towns and the setting of historic towns, or that the development fundamentally undermined the Green Belt remaining across the plan area.
This grey belt appeal should not be read as making every enclosed field automatically developable. A current Planning Geek explanation of grey belt and Green Belt sets out the tests under the revised Framework. Physical containment is important evidence, but each relevant purpose and each additional policy requirement still needs its own assessment.
Housing supply and sustainable access tipped the balance
The council could demonstrate only 3.8 years of deliverable housing land supply. The Inspector found this established unmet housing need for the proposed development. It satisfied one of the required tests under policy GB7(1)(g), rather than simply operating as a general invitation to build anywhere in the Green Belt.
The site is close to everyday facilities within Alderley Edge, a Local Service Centre in the Cheshire East development plan. The bus stop and railway station are approximately a kilometre away, but the Inspector considered the walk reasonably practical because pavements were mostly lit and observed by adjoining properties.
The proposal included a two-metre footway along the site frontage and off-site improvements to Heyes Lane, including a pedestrian crossing and a widened footway. Those details were important. The Inspector judged that future residents would have safe access towards the town and could reach services by walking and cycling.
The grey belt appeal therefore combined a site-specific assessment of physical containment, evidence of unmet housing need and a positive judgement on sustainable travel. None of those findings should be detached from the other two when considering a different Green Belt site.
Affordable housing agreement was not needed for permission
The parties submitted a section 106 agreement providing for affordable housing. That might sound essential to the result, but the Inspector expressly found otherwise.
Policy SC5 of the local plan applies affordable housing requirements to larger schemes in Local Service Centres and other locations, with a threshold of 11 dwellings and a requirement for at least 30% affordable homes.
Because the outline proposal was for no more than nine homes, the Inspector found the policy trigger had not been reached. The agreement was not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and was not taken into account in allowing the appeal.
This aspect of the grey belt appeal illustrates why a proposed planning obligation should be tested for necessity rather than treated as a convenient substitute for policy reasoning. Planning Geek’s section 106 agreement guide explains the purpose and legal framework of planning obligations.
Committee lost the appeal but won the costs dispute
The council’s Northern Planning Committee had refused the application against professional officer advice. The developer argued that this was unreasonable and applied for a full award of appeal costs. The separate costs decision examined the committee’s reasons, the evidence on Green Belt purposes and the sustainability of the site.
Inspector Unwin said the committee was entitled to take a different view from officers, provided a defensible planning judgement could be made. The costs decision states that the members’ refusal amounted to a judgement they were entitled to make, even though the Inspector ultimately preferred the appellant’s case.
The grey belt appeal was therefore allowed while the application for costs was refused. This is a useful distinction for applicants considering a costs claim after a committee overturns an officer recommendation. A failed planning judgement is not automatically unreasonable conduct causing wasted appeal expense.
The costs decision also recorded that an earlier permission for nine affordable homes had different material considerations. It did not treat the earlier decision as proof that the new market-housing scheme must be approved on the same basis.
What permission was actually granted
The decision grants outline permission for up to nine dwellings with access considered. All other matters remain reserved. The illustrative submitted layout does not settle the eventual appearance, design, landscaping or detailed arrangement of the homes.
Conditions require approval of reserved matters and address access visibility, highway improvements, construction management, tree protection, surface water drainage and contamination precautions. The statutory biodiversity gain requirement applies independently, so the Inspector rejected an unnecessary duplicated biodiversity condition.
Nothing in the grey belt appeal removes the land from the Green Belt on the development plan. Rather, the Inspector applied an exception under the current national planning policy and found the scheme not inappropriate for the purposes of that policy. Any later development must still proceed through reserved matters and comply with the imposed conditions.
The broader lesson is not that councillors should always follow officers, or that a 3.8-year supply guarantees consent. A careful Green Belt purpose analysis and credible access measures made this particular site qualify. The refusal of costs shows that reasonable decision-makers can still reach different conclusions on contested planning evidence.
Official appeal and costs decisions
The Planning Inspectorate record for appeal 6004692 concerns application 25/1064/OUT and Inspector N Unwin’s decisions dated 27th October 2026. The Inspector’s brief quotation above is reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0. The separate costs decision refused the developer’s application for an award against Cheshire East Council.
The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments