Cheshire grey belt appeal wins permission for six homes

A Cheshire grey belt appeal has granted permission in principle for up to six homes on a greenfield site near Lymm, despite objections concerning footpaths, road safety and reliance on cars. The Inspector’s decision of 8th October 2026 tests the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework’s approach to accessible minor housing development in the Green Belt.

Gleaves Homes Ltd appealed Cheshire East Council’s refusal of permission in principle for between one and six dwellings on land off Agden Park Lane, Broomedge. Both parties agreed the site qualified as grey belt, but disputed whether it was in a sustainable location under the revised national policy.

Inspector C Evans concluded that residents would have meaningful access to local services and alternative transport, even though some journeys would remain less convenient on foot. Permission in principle was granted for a minimum of one and maximum of six dwellings, with detailed design and implementation questions left to the later technical details consent stage.

Cheshire grey belt appeal: what was granted

Appeal reference 6009378 concerned application 25/1213/PIP. The site is a field at the edge of Broomedge, with homes nearby, other fields beyond and access from the relatively narrow Agden Park Lane. It lies in the Green Belt, where housing proposals face national and local policy restrictions.

The permission in principle route is deliberately limited. At this first stage, the decision-maker considers location, use and amount of development. Detailed questions such as design, access engineering, drainage and landscaping fall primarily within a later technical details consent application. An in-principle decision therefore creates an opportunity to bring forward a scheme but is not authority to start building.

The Inspector explicitly confirmed that the 17th August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework applied. Both main parties had an opportunity to comment on the revised document, making this a useful example of the new policy being used in an appeal determination.

Why grey belt status was not the real dispute

Cheshire East and the appellant agreed that the land was grey belt and that development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt in the plan area. They also agreed there was a demonstrable unmet need for housing because the Council could not show five years’ deliverable housing land supply.

The central dispute instead concerned the sustainable-location requirement under Policy GB7(1)(g)(iii), read alongside the Framework’s sustainable movement policy TR3. That requirement asks whether development is placed where it can support sustainable travel patterns and provide good accessibility for different users.

The proposal was minor development, so the parties agreed that the relevant ‘Golden Rules’ policy did not apply. The Inspector therefore had to determine whether the site satisfied the remaining criteria, rather than assuming grey belt status alone created an entitlement to permission.

The distinction matters to promoters of smaller Green Belt sites. Establishing that a parcel is grey belt is only one element of the policy test. Applicants must still address housing need, the integrity of the remaining Green Belt and the site’s accessibility.

A narrow lane without a pavement did not prove unsustainability

Residents would normally walk a short distance along Agden Park Lane to reach most services in Broomedge. The lane lacked a pavement, but had street lighting and reasonably good forward visibility. The appellant had suggested surfacing part of the verge as a potential improvement, although there was no mechanism to secure that work at the permission in principle stage.

The Inspector considered that the lack of a footway was not, on the evidence, an insuperable barrier. The nearby A56 had a lit pavement on one side, predominantly flat and sufficient for at least some pedestrian journeys. Some stretches might be less comfortable for wheelchair users or people with pushchairs, but this did not necessarily prevent all walking travel.

The local primary school was about two kilometres away and reached by an overgrown footway. The Inspector accepted that many parents with small children would probably drive. She nevertheless treated that limitation as one factor in a broader appraisal of available local facilities, not a single decisive reason for refusal.

The decision should not be read as suggesting that deficient pavements are always acceptable. The Inspector relied on her site observations, specific distances, available alternatives and the absence of evidence showing that walking and cycling were impossible or unacceptably unsafe. A site without those characteristics could reach a different outcome.

Bus services and crossing the A56 were central

Local facilities within the distance guidelines of Cheshire East Local Plan Policy SD2 included a bus stop, shop, post office, post box, public house and public right of way. Other amenities, including schools and recreational space, were further away but still accessible by a mixture of transport modes.

At the time of the site visit, an hourly bus operated Monday to Saturday, including evenings, with a more limited Sunday service. Stops near the Jolly Thresher and the Wheatsheaf gave residents some realistic choice beyond private vehicles.

Concerns about crossing the busy A56 were also considered. Speed limits reduced from 40mph to 30mph approaching a bend, and the Inspector observed regular gaps in traffic. Although residents raised concerns about safety, there was no substantive accident evidence before the Inspector to demonstrate that the crossing could not reasonably be used.

The finding was therefore not that the site was perfect for pedestrians and cyclists, but that sufficient alternative travel opportunities existed for some journeys to meet the national and local sustainable-location policies. The decision demonstrates the importance of examining actual facilities, routes and use patterns instead of relying solely on general descriptions of rural car dependence.

The Green Belt policy consequence

Having found that the site met the sustainable-location requirement, the Inspector concluded the proposal was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt under Policy GB7. Consequently, there was no need to undertake the usual assessment of harm to openness associated with inappropriate development.

The Inspector also concluded that the scheme complied with relevant policies of the Cheshire East Local Plan, insofar as they supported access to services and allowed development which was not inappropriate in the Green Belt. This policy pathway, rather than a general presumption in favour of any rural housing, explains the allowance.

The appeal provides a focused lesson for applicants in settlements where Green Belt land directly abuts residential areas. Evidence should describe the surrounding settlement, services, bus frequency, pedestrian route conditions and how those details meet the exact policy criteria.

What is left for technical details consent

Objectors raised biodiversity, drainage, surface water, flooding, landscape and highway safety issues. The Inspector did not dismiss their potential importance but explained that they were not determinative in the permission in principle assessment because the first-stage decision is restricted to location, use and the amount of development.

The layout and design of the eventual homes, and any effects on adjoining properties, would similarly be assessed at the technical details consent stage. The Council had not raised a separate character-and-appearance objection, and no policy protecting the view from the site was identified.

No planning conditions were imposed on the permission in principle. That is consistent with Planning Practice Guidance, which provides for the relevant technical detail to be dealt with separately. Developers should not treat the absence of conditions as a substitute for subsequent technical consent or other necessary statutory approvals.

The outcome establishes a maximum of six dwellings at the site, not the precise number, arrangement or design which will ultimately be approved. A later submission may still need to address access, drainage, ecology and any other relevant development management requirements.

The decision and wider lesson

The Inspector’s decision is Appeal Ref 6009378, land off Agden Park Lane, Broomedge, decided 8th October 2026. The original case can be traced through the Planning Inspectorate appeal record. For background see government guidance on permission in principle and Planning Geek’s Green Belt guidance.

The decision is not a binding court precedent. It demonstrates how an Inspector assessed one small site against the applicable August 2026 national policy, evidence of housing need and specific local transport circumstances. Another site with different routes, services or safety evidence may be decided differently.