A grey belt appeal for up to nine homes near Over Peover in Cheshire has been dismissed because the site lacked safe, realistic alternatives to private-car travel. The decision, issued on 12 November 2026, shows that accepting land as grey belt and acknowledging a housing shortfall do not automatically establish that development is appropriate in the Green Belt.
John Morrison, an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, dismissed the permission in principle appeal at land behind Merrydale Farm Cottage on Chelford Lane. The application had been submitted by W Stobart to Cheshire East Council, and the appeal followed the council’s failure to decide it within the prescribed period.
The grey belt appeal turned on the practical meaning of sustainable accessibility under the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework. An unlit road without a pavement, a constrained public footpath and an informal hail-and-ride bus service could not overcome the site’s poor accessibility. The decision also addressed Green Belt openness, development plan conflict and potential noise from a neighbouring helicopter business.
Why the grey belt appeal failed the policy test
The central policy point was not whether the land met the description of grey belt. Both principal parties accepted that it did, and agreed that the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the remaining Green Belt purposes across the plan area. Cheshire East could not demonstrate the required housing land supply, so an evidenced unmet need was also accepted.
Those agreements satisfied important elements of Policy GB7(1)(g) of the revised Framework, but the policy requires all relevant criteria to be met. Inspector John Morrison’s decision found that the proposal failed the sustainable-location criterion when tested against Policy TR3, which addresses movement, accessibility and opportunities to reduce dependence on the private car. S Manson had undertaken the site visit and prepared the recommendation on which Morrison based the decision.
The grey belt appeal consequently failed to qualify for the exception to inappropriate development. That is a narrower conclusion than saying grey belt land cannot accommodate new housing. The decision is instead an example of a policy gateway where one unmet requirement defeats the proposed exemption even though the land classification and housing need are not contested.
Planning Geek’s guide to grey belt and Green Belt explains why the two terms are not interchangeable. This case shows the additional importance of checking the detailed policy conditions rather than relying upon the label given to a site.
A difficult walk and an informal bus service
The site fronts Chelford Lane, described in the decision as an unlit rural road subject to the national speed limit. There are no continuous footways. The appeal planning officer recorded walking towards Chelford during the site visit and encountering fast-moving vehicles close to the road edge, with bends restricting visibility.
S Manson’s assessment of the walk, adopted by Inspector Morrison, was unequivocal: I found the walk to be unattractive, unsuitable and unsafe.
The point was not a simple calculation of distance. It concerned the real experience of people walking along the route, including during darkness or poor weather.
A public footpath, Peover Superior and Snelson FP23, offered another route towards Over Peover. It was generally maintained and apparently well used, but its narrow stretches, hedges, fencing and unmade surface would make it less practical for people with mobility difficulties or pushchairs, particularly in wet weather. Nearby village services would still be more than a kilometre away.
The appellant also relied on a hail-and-ride bus route. The operator indicated that buses could stop where passengers were visible and conditions permitted. Yet no formal stop or safe waiting area was identified, and a driver’s ability to see someone on an unlit road could vary with the weather. The grey belt appeal therefore illustrates why a passing bus is not necessarily the same thing as dependable public transport.
The appellant raised homeworking, online shopping, remote services and electric vehicles as factors reducing conventional travel demand. The planning officer recognised those developments but explained that future households would still need access to schools, healthcare, shops and other services. Neither working from home nor ownership of an electric vehicle could be assumed for every eventual occupier.
Openness and housing need in the balance
Although permission in principle deals with location, land use and the amount of development, the decision could still consider the broad effects of placing up to nine homes on currently open land. The report found that houses, gardens, access arrangements and other domestic features would reduce spatial openness and introduce a visible cluster of buildings facing Chelford Lane.
The appeal planning officer also considered whether the proposal would make efficient use of land. Without an established countryside density benchmark or evidence that nine homes would be a materially inefficient use of the plot, no conflict with the Framework’s efficient-use policy was found. That neutral finding did not offset the identified harms.
Cheshire East’s housing undersupply was accepted. The new homes would provide a limited housing contribution and some construction and local spending benefits. However, the report treated generalised economic projections cautiously, describing the benefits as largely modest and short-lived for a scheme of this scale.
The grey belt appeal then required a conventional assessment of whether other considerations clearly outweighed the Green Belt harms so as to amount to very special circumstances. The officer concluded that they did not. Inspector Morrison considered the report and the submitted evidence and dismissed the appeal in accordance with that recommendation.
The Planning Geek guide to five-year housing land supply explains the evidential role of a council’s shortfall. It does not remove the need to show how a particular proposal satisfies location, transport, Green Belt and other relevant safeguards.
Permission in principle did not remove other constraints
The appellant sought only the first stage of permission in principle, with the details of layout and design to follow through technical details consent if the principle were accepted. This did not prevent the decision-maker from addressing the essential suitability of the site for residential occupation.
A neighbouring helicopter charter business raised a separate concern. Although the council had not framed that activity as a formal refusal reason, the planning officer observed that intermittent helicopter noise might affect future residents. There was insufficient information about the frequency, timing and intensity of movements to be confident that any future mitigation could resolve the potential conflict.
The report considered the Framework’s living-conditions and agent-of-change provisions, alongside local policy protecting existing activities. It did not find that every detailed matter had to be settled at the permission in principle stage, but it refused to assume that a technical details application would necessarily overcome the noise issue.
Planning Geek’s permission in principle guide explains the distinction between establishing the acceptability of a site’s location, use and amount of development and applying later for technical details consent. The grey belt appeal demonstrates how much depends on the first stage being supportable on the evidence available.
What makes this decision noteworthy
The applicant relied on other appeal decisions concerning rural housing and access to services. The report distinguished those cases because they involved established principles of development, site-specific connectivity improvements, more accessible public transport or materially different policy contexts. A different Inspector’s decision was not treated as a substitute for evidence about this site.
There is a practical lesson for applicants considering grey belt plots in rural locations. A housing-land shortfall and an agreed grey belt classification may help, but applicants also need credible evidence of safe pedestrian routes, usable public transport and compatibility with established neighbouring operations. Where those matters cannot be resolved, the national policy exception may not apply.
The grey belt appeal was dismissed on 12 November 2026 under reference 6012784. The site is land behind Merrydale Farm Cottage, Chelford Lane, Over Peover, Cheshire, and the application reference is 25/4099/PIP. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase, with the Planning Inspectorate case record providing the official route. Quoted decision text is Planning Inspectorate material under the Open Government Licence.
0 Comments