Grey belt PIP wins five homes after Connectivity Tool scores site 33

A grey belt PIP appeal has secured five homes at Dunvilles Farm in Monks Heath, with a Government Connectivity Tool score of 33 helping persuade the Inspector that the location was sustainable.

Inspector K Mee allowed appeal 6010578 on 2nd October 2026, overturning Cheshire East Council’s refusal of application 26/0676/PIP. The grey belt PIP fixes both the minimum and maximum number of dwellings at five.

Both parties accepted that the land qualified as grey belt and that the council lacked a five-year housing land supply. The distinctive point is how the Inspector assessed access to services and transport under the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, weighing the score alongside the actual opportunities and limitations around the site.

Why the Connectivity Tool score mattered

The land at Bollington Lane and Chelford Road lies outside a defined settlement. That did not automatically make it an unsuitable location for housing, but the appellant still needed to demonstrate that future residents could realistically reach services and facilities.

Mee considered the sustainable-location requirement in Policy GB7 alongside transport Policy TR3 of the August 2026 NPPF. The parties had been invited to comment on the revised Framework before she determined the appeal.

The decision records that she was informed of an overall Connectivity Tool score of 33. She described it as “an above average result for a site in this type of location”.

She also noted comparable scores at approved residential schemes at Eagles Road and Alderley Park, which reportedly ranged between 29 and 34. Those comparisons supported the location case; they did not establish a national threshold.

There is no finding here that 33 is a universal pass mark. The score supported an assessment already grounded in local transport options and accessible facilities. Nor did the decision say that any site achieving the same score should receive permission.

The nearest bus stop was said to be approximately 391m away. The Inspector recorded that the No 87 and No 130 routes connected with Macclesfield, Knutsford and Manchester Airport. Although each operated hourly, staggered timetables provided more frequent travel opportunities, including during commuting periods.

A café lay opposite, with a convenience store within walking distance. A gym, restaurant, children’s nursery, petrol filling station, car wash and vehicle dealership were situated within around 500m. Alderley Park’s employment and leisure opportunities were around 1km away, reached via connecting lit footpaths.

Railway stations could be reached by bus or cycle, while Alderley Edge’s wider facilities were within reasonable cycling distance. These were findings on the evidence before the Inspector, rather than a fresh verification of today’s bus timetables.

Mee acknowledged the weaknesses too. Sections of the pedestrian route were uneven, surfaces varied and much of it was unlit. The nearby play area was private, and access to publicly available recreation was more limited than the appellant suggested.

Concerns about wheelchair users and people with reduced mobility were considered. The Inspector nevertheless found the path generally usable in its semi-rural context, with a substantial grass verge separating it from the road. She accepted that residents would use cars for some journeys but still have a genuine and realistic choice of transport modes.

How this grey belt PIP met the housing-need test

The grey belt route involved more than attaching a label to the field. Policy GB7 required consideration of its status, the effect on the remaining Green Belt, evidenced unmet need and a sustainable location, with the Golden Rules applying where relevant.

The parties agreed that the site qualified as grey belt and that development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area. Mee agreed after considering the evidence and visiting the site.

Cheshire East’s inability to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land established unmet housing need for this assessment. The decision does not give a precise supply figure, so there is no basis for adding one.

Having accepted the sustainable-location case, the Inspector found that the proposal met the applicable GB7 criteria and was not inappropriate Green Belt development. Very special circumstances were therefore unnecessary.

Five homes meant no Golden Rules in this appeal

Mee expressly found that the Green Belt Golden Rules did not apply because they concern major development and this proposal was not major development.

That is a useful distinction for smaller grey belt PIP proposals. Grey belt status does not automatically trigger the Golden Rules for every housing scheme. Equally, the finding should not be stretched into a blanket rule based only on dwelling numbers: applicants still need to establish the development’s classification.

In this grey belt PIP appeal, the Inspector treated the five-home proposal as non-major. That resolved the fourth limb without removing the separate tests concerning the land, housing need or sustainability.

Permission in principle did not make flood risk irrelevant

The second important lesson concerns the limits of permission in principle. PIP establishes whether a site is suitable in terms of location, land use and amount of development. Technical Details Consent assesses the detailed proposals afterwards.

Those limits do not put flood risk outside the first-stage assessment whenever it affects one of the three specified matters. A constraint capable of making the location or amount unsuitable can still matter at PIP stage.

Dunvilles Farm lies in Flood Zone 1, but a small area in its south-west corner has medium surface-water flood risk. A pond to the north-east is also affected by medium and high surface-water risk.

The substantial majority of the site, including potential access points, was unaffected. Mee found no substantive evidence that five dwellings could not avoid the affected areas or incorporate mitigation to manage surface water without increasing risk elsewhere.

Detailed layout and mitigation remained for Technical Details Consent, which would need a detailed flood risk assessment. Visibility splays and detailed access arrangements would also be considered at that stage.

This was a conclusion about what the particular site could accommodate in principle. It was not a finding that flood risk could be ignored, or that Technical Details Consent was guaranteed. The permission in principle cannot carry conditions and does not itself authorise construction of the homes.

Why the costs claim failed

Winning the grey belt PIP appeal did not secure reimbursement of the appellant’s appeal expenses. William Whittaker, acting on behalf of Whittaker Cap Limited, sought a full costs award against Cheshire East, but Mee refused it in a separate decision.

The appellant argued that the council had wrongly treated flood risk as determinative at PIP stage, failed to give sufficient weight to relevant appeals, interpreted accessibility policies too rigidly and engaged only minimally with the evidence.

The Inspector found that the council’s detailed delegated officer report clearly explained its concerns, policy conflicts and refusal reasons. It was entitled to rely on that earlier assessment rather than advance additional evidence during the appeal.

Her different conclusion was ultimately a matter of planning judgement. Unreasonable behaviour causing unnecessary or wasted expense had not been demonstrated.

The costs decision also expressly confirms that flood risk can be considered where it falls within location, land use or amount. That qualification is essential when reading the successful main appeal.

The grey belt PIP planning balance

Mee applied Policy S5(5) after finding compliance with the Green Belt exception. Through GB7, the policy supported approval unless the benefits were substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against the Framework’s national decision-making policies, applying S5(2).

She identified social and economic benefits during construction, subsequent occupation close to services and facilities, and a contribution to the area’s housing need. She found that adverse effects did not outweigh those benefits.

The outcome was permission in principle for exactly five dwellings, rather than a flexible range or full permission for a settled design.

Planning Geek analysis

For me, the value of this decision is the way it connects the Connectivity Tool to conditions on the ground. A score helped the case because it sat alongside bus services, walking and cycling opportunities and accessible facilities, with the shortcomings openly assessed.

We should use this as a practical example, not a shortcut. A grey belt PIP case still needs the full GB7 assessment, and comparable scores need comparable context. Neither housing need nor a favourable number removes the other planning tests.

It also shows why the first and second PIP stages need careful separation. Evidence must establish that the proposed amount can work in that location; detailed design and mitigation follow at Technical Details Consent. Our planning consultancy can help assess that planning case and coordinate specialist evidence where needed.

Read the decision

Read the Dunvilles Farm appeal decision 6010578 and the separate costs decision, both issued on 2nd October 2026.