A Green Belt annexe proposed at Fodens Farm near Gawsworth, Cheshire, has lost its planning appeal even though the Inspector concluded that it fell within an exception to inappropriate Green Belt development. Inspector F P Tinsley dismissed the appeal on 12 November 2026 because the proposed building would harm the character and appearance of the rural site.
The case concerns a proposed annexe to an occupied replacement dwelling off Woodhouse End Road near Macclesfield. The appellant, Roger Coleman, appealed after Cheshire East Council failed to determine the application within the statutory period. The proposal was assessed against both the development plan and the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework.
The separate costs decision adds a particularly useful twist. The Inspector found that Cheshire East Council had acted unreasonably in its handling of the application but refused to award costs because the conduct had not been shown to cause unnecessary appeal expenditure. The Green Belt annexe and costs decisions therefore answer two different questions about planning merits and procedural fairness.
Why the Green Belt annexe cleared the size test
The planning dispute arose from a replacement home already built at Fodens Farm. An earlier appeal permission, reference APP/R0660/W/18/3211271, had required the original farmhouse to be demolished once the new dwelling was substantially complete and capable of occupation. The old farmhouse remained on the land, and the current application proposed replacing it with an annexe in broadly the same location.
The annexe would provide ancillary accommodation, a catering kitchen, storage, a security office and welfare facilities for staff. It was not simply a small bedroom extension. The Inspector considered the broader group of buildings already present, including the replacement dwelling and an entertainment barn, when assessing how the proposal would appear within the countryside.
A key issue was the revised Framework’s Policy GB7(1)(b). On the parties’ case, the development was an extension or alteration of an existing building, and the size of the proposed annexe was approximately 30% of the original dwelling approved in the earlier permission. The Inspector found this was not a disproportionate addition when tested against size.
Cheshire East also relied on local policies addressing prominence, bulk and visual intrusion. The Inspector drew a distinction: those matters could influence the overall design and countryside impact, but they did not change the size-based question under Policy GB7(1)(b). The Green Belt annexe consequently met that particular national policy exception and was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
That conclusion does not mean any proposed annexe occupying a prominent position is acceptable. It means the Inspector separated the threshold Green Belt question from the remaining planning merits. Planning Geek’s guide to Green Belt and related land classifications explains the difference between land designations, while this decision illustrates why a policy exception is only one part of the assessment.
Why rural character still defeated the proposal
The Inspector went on to consider how the annexe would relate to the replacement home and surrounding land. The replacement dwelling and barn stood farther back in a courtyard arrangement intended to reduce their visual effect. The new annexe would sit closer to Woodhouse End Road and appear as a separate, prominent building facing the countryside.
Although the proposed design reflected the cottage-style buildings on the site, the Inspector concluded that its siting would make it visually dominant. Rather than reading as an ancillary structure, it risked appearing to be the main residential building. The design concern was about the position and relationship of buildings, not simply the choice of windows or materials.
The proposed Green Belt annexe would also add to the impression of a substantial cluster of development visible from the lane. The existing roadside hedge could provide some screening, but the Inspector gave that only limited weight because planting changes with the seasons and cannot be assumed to remain permanently effective.
For these reasons the Inspector found conflict with Cheshire East’s development plan requirements for development to respect rural character, local distinctiveness and design quality. The Inspector gave limited weight to an additional claimed breach of the Cheshire East Design Guide because the council had not identified specific provisions supporting that particular objection.
The result is an important distinction for other sites. The Green Belt policy classification was not the reason for dismissal. The development nevertheless failed the separate test of whether its position, massing and subordinate relationship would fit the surroundings. Compliance with one national policy exception does not neutralise the rest of the development plan.
An earlier demolition condition carried weight
The history of the replacement dwelling was unusually important. The Inspector noted that the former farmhouse had been required to be removed under the previous permission so that the new scheme would not adversely affect the site’s appearance. The current annexe would reintroduce built development in much the same prominent part of the holding.
The earlier Inspector’s site-specific findings about the intended form and appearance of the development remained materially relevant to the present decision. Inspector Tinsley found no compelling evidence explaining why a building in that location had become acceptable after the earlier requirement to clear it.
The appellant referred to a need for the proposed accommodation and facilities. However, the Inspector found insufficient substantive evidence to support the claimed need or justify the scale and form proposed. The absence of neighbour objections and limited wider countryside effects did not outweigh the design and character concerns.
This is where the Green Belt annexe ultimately lost. The Inspector considered that the harmful relationship between the proposed building and the replacement home outweighed its limited benefits. The decision underlines the practical importance of reviewing existing planning conditions and their continuing effects before preparing a fresh application on a previously developed residential holding.
Council delay was unreasonable but costs were refused
The linked application for a full award of appeal costs presented a different argument. Cheshire East had not determined the application within its eight-week period, had not shown that it sought an agreed extension, and had apparently failed to answer the appellant’s email requesting an update after the deadline had passed.
Inspector Tinsley expressly found that the Council’s handling of the application amounted to unreasonable behaviour
. That is a significant criticism of the authority’s administration of the application, but the costs decision did not end there. Under the relevant Planning Practice Guidance, an award also requires a causal link between unreasonable behaviour and unnecessary or wasted appeal expense.
The Inspector held that the fundamental disagreement about the planning merits would have remained even with a timely refusal. The council’s appeal case set out its substantive reasons, which the Inspector largely accepted on design grounds. Better communication would not necessarily have avoided an appeal, and a successful planning outcome was not inevitable.
The resulting costs refusal is worth distinguishing from the dismissal of the application. Although the Green Belt annexe qualified as not inappropriate Green Belt development, the council’s opposition still had a reasonable substantive planning foundation. Its poor communication did not establish that the appellant had incurred appeal costs which would otherwise have been avoided.
Planning Geek’s guidance on costs awards in planning appeals explains the need to show both unreasonable behaviour and wasted expense. The separate non-determination appeal guide covers the route available when a council fails to make a decision by the applicable deadline.
What applicants should take from the two decisions
The Fodens Farm decisions illustrate why a Green Belt annexe application needs two distinct assessments. First, establish whether the proposal meets a defined exception to inappropriate development using the relevant national policy criteria. Second, examine location, architectural hierarchy, appearance, local policy, and conditions attached to earlier permissions.
They also show why costs applications should not simply repeat criticism of a council’s delays. The applicant must identify what particular work or expenditure was unnecessarily incurred because of the council’s behaviour and why more reasonable conduct would have avoided it. An unreasonable delay is not, by itself, a guaranteed route to compensation for an unsuccessful appeal.
The planning appeal and separate costs decision were both issued on 12 November 2026 by Inspector F P Tinsley under appeal reference 6011380, which can be viewed on the Planning Inspectorate’s appeals service. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments