Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 August 2024 by R Major BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 September 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/24/3339806 Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane SK10 4NY • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Chris Miles on behalf of Abode Property Development Ltd against the decision of Cheshire East Council. • The application Ref is 22/4399M. • The development proposed is outline planning application for the construction of 2 dwellings with all matters reserved except access. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Outline planning permission is sought with all matters reserved for later approval except for the means of access. The submitted application includes an indicative layout plan showing how the dwellings could be arranged on the site, and I have had due regard to this illustrative plan in the consideration of this proposal. 3.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision On 30 July 2024 the Government published a consultation on “Proposed reforms to the NPPF and other changes to the planning system” and the “National Planning Policy Framework: draft text for consultation”. A Written Ministerial Statement entitled “Building the homes we need” was also published on 30 July 2024. 4. Whilst a direction of travel has been outlined within the Written Ministerial Statement, which is a material consideration of very significant weight, the weight I give to the changes in the draft Framework is limited given that no final document has been published and it is subject to potential change in the future. I have therefore had due regard to these publications in my determination of this appeal and the main parties were given the opportunity to comment on these publications. I have taken into account any comments raised. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Main Issues 5. The main issues are: • whether or not the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Whether the proposal is inappropriate development 6. The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, with the essential characteristics of the Green Belt being their openness and permanence. The Framework goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 7. The Framework further establishes that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions as set out in paragraph 154. One such exception, criterion (e), being limited infilling in villages. 8.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Policy PG 3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010 – 2030 (2017) (LPS) mirrors the wording of the Framework in respect of the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt, including the listed exceptions. As such, LPS Policy PG 3 conforms with the provisions of the Framework. 9. Policy PG 10 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (2022) (SADPD) sets out the approach in relation to ‘infill villages’ and provides a list of settlements which are defined as infill villages, with their boundaries shown on the adopted policies map. At criterion (4) this policy states that outside of these infill village boundaries, development proposals will not be considered to be ‘limited infilling in villages’ when applying LPS Policies PG 3 and PG 6. 10. Paragraph 154 (e) of the Framework does not specify that a site must be located within a defined village boundary in order to constitute limited infill within a village. However, I recognise that the SADPD has been adopted recently and Policy PG 10 has been through a public examination and found to be sound. 11.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Nevertheless, the appellant has referred to established case law1 and this is a material consideration that is relevant to the appeal proposal. In this case law it was found that the boundary of a village defined in a local plan may not be determinative in considering whether a site is within a village and regard should also be had to the ‘on the ground’ situation. As such, the infill village boundaries as defined in SADPD Policy PG 10 are only a starting point, and a further assessment based upon the ‘on the ground’ situation is required to ultimately determine 1 Julian Wood v SSCLG, Gravesham Borough Council [2015] EWVA Civ 195 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Nevertheless, the appellant has referred to established case law1 and this is a material consideration that is relevant to the appeal proposal. In this case law it was found that the boundary of a village defined in a local plan may not be determinative in considering whether a site is within a village and regard should also be had to the ‘on the ground’ situation. As such, the infill village boundaries as defined in SADPD Policy PG 10 are only a starting point, and a further assessment based upon the ‘on the ground’ situation is required to ultimately determine 1 Julian Wood v SSCLG, Gravesham Borough Council [2015] EWVA Civ 195 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision whether a site is located within a village for the purposes of paragraph 154 (e) of the Framework. 12. I note the appellant’s comments that SADPD Policy PG 10 is irrelevant to this appeal as it refers to a series of smaller villages, and is essentially silent in relation to larger settlements. However, given that this policy relates specifically to ‘infill villages’ and the appeal submission seeks to justify the appeal proposal on the basis that the site is located within a village for the purposes of paragraph 154 (e) of the Framework, I find that SADPD Policy PG 10 is relevant in the determination of this appeal. 13. Additionally, as part of their response to the request for comments on the “National Planning Policy Framework: draft text for consultation” document and the Written Ministerial Statement, the appellant further states that Policy PG 10 is no longer consistent with the Framework because it does not allow for an ‘on the ground’ assessment to be made for sites outside the defined infill village boundaries. 14. Paragraph 225 of the Framework states that due weight should be given to policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Whilst I find that criterion (4) of Policy PG 10 is not entirely consistent with paragraph 154 (e) of the Framework, as it restricts ‘limited infilling in villages’ to sites within settlement boundaries as shown on the policies map and therefore does not allow for an ‘on the ground’ assessment to be made, I do not find that the Policy as a whole is inconsistent with the Framework. Nevertheless, the inconsistency between criterion (4) and paragraph 154 (e) means that the weight to be given to this policy is somewhat reduced, however I still afford Policy PG 10 significant weight in the determination of this appeal. 15. The appeal site is located within an area referred to by the appellant as Wardsend and does not fall within a defined infill village boundary on the adopted policies map. The area of Wardsend appears to primarily consist of two small clusters of buildings in a sporadic layout, with various significant gaps on both sides of the road. Aside from a car repair garage, I observed no other specific amenity facilities within Wardsend during my site visit and my attention has not been drawn to any within the submissions.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision As such, I find that the small area of Wardsend itself does not represent a village for the purposes of paragraph 154 (e). 16. The nearest infill village boundaries to the appeal site, as shown on the adopted policies map, are Adlington to the southwest and Higher Poynton to the northeast. The appeal site is located a substantial distance from both these infill village boundaries. Consequently, the appeal site does not form part of the infill villages of either Adlington or Higher Poynton. 17. The appeal site is however located much closer to the Key Service Centre of Poynton, albeit it is outside the defined settlement boundary of Poynton as shown on the adopted policies map. Nevertheless, whilst I note that Poynton is not listed as an infill village within SADPD Policy PG 10, given that it is a Key Service Centre I have considered Poynton to be a ‘village’ for the purposes of the exception at paragraph 154 (e) of the Framework, as the effect on the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it would be the same. 18.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Consequently, and in view of all the above, whilst outside the settlement boundary of Poynton, an ‘on the ground’ assessment must be made as to whether the appeal site forms part of the settlement (village) of Poynton for the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Consequently, and in view of all the above, whilst outside the settlement boundary of Poynton, an ‘on the ground’ assessment must be made as to whether the appeal site forms part of the settlement (village) of Poynton for the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision purposes of paragraph 154 (e) of the Framework. This is a matter of planning judgement based on the site-specific circumstances. 19. The defined settlement boundary of Poynton, as per the policies map, ends at the junction of Dickens Lane and Waterloo Road. To the west of this junction the suburban character of the settlement of Poynton is defined by the large number of residential dwellings, including the dwellings recently constructed on the allocated site at Sprink Farm2 which, according to the submissions, is nearing completion. The properties within the settlement boundary follow a fairly regimented and traditional settlement pattern with large sections of continuous built ribbon development fronting the highways, and this predominantly ends at the junction of Waterloo Road. 20. Once beyond the junction of Waterloo Road the character of the area changes, and even more so beyond the Wards End bridge which crosses over the brook, where Dickens Lane becomes Moggie Lane. At this bridge the footpath on the south side of the highway ends and is replaced by a stone wall characteristic of rural areas.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision A short distance beyond the bridge the footpath on the northern side of the highway also terminates and is replaced by a narrow grass verge and a high brick wall serving a large, detached dwelling. Furthermore, I found that the significant number of trees located on both sides of the highway, close to the bridge and associated with the brook, represent a clear differentiation and landscape buffer between the settlement of Poynton and the semi-rural character beyond. 21. I observed that the section of Moggie Lane where the appeal site is located, along with its immediate surroundings, consists of sporadic dwelling plots and a car repair garage, interspersed with significant areas of undeveloped land. Whilst I acknowledge that some of the dwellings include suburbanising features, such as large driveways with brick boundary walls to the front, predominantly the highway is flanked on both sides by high hedging and trees. This hedging and trees provide a verdant appearance, positively contributing to the semi-rural character of the area and its Green Belt designation. 22.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision As such, and based on my on-site observations, I found that the semi-rural character and appearance of the appeal site, and its immediate surroundings, was very different to the more continuously built-up and suburban characteristics of the nearby settlement of Poynton. Therefore, in my planning judgement, the appeal site does not visually or spatially relate to the settlement of Poynton. 23. In coming to the above view, I note the appellant’s comments in respect of the nearby allocated site at Sprink Farm and its physical and visual relationship to the appeal site. However, during my site visit I did not observe that this allocated site was readily visible from the appeal site and was both visually and physically separated by the brook and its associated mature trees which provide a natural landscaping buffer. Additionally, and for the reasons given above, I have found that there is also a significant visual difference between this allocated site and its immediate surroundings within the settlement, when compared to the semi-rural nature of the appeal site and its immediate surroundings. 24.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Furthermore, and as mentioned earlier, the footways on both side of the highway terminate at, or very shortly after, Wards End bridge. The appeal site 2 LPA Refs: 17/4256M and 19/1972M https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Furthermore, and as mentioned earlier, the footways on both side of the highway terminate at, or very shortly after, Wards End bridge. The appeal site 2 LPA Refs: 17/4256M and 19/1972M https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision is therefore not currently well connected to the settlement of Poynton in terms of walking via Moggie Lane, as future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would need to walk within the road, which does not benefit from street lighting. 25. I note that the proposal includes the provision of a new section of footway directly to the front of the appeal site. However, this footway would be situated along the site frontage only and therefore would not connect to the existing footway that terminates at the bridge, which is a significant distance away. Thus, whilst the provision of this footway would have some advantages, it would not prevent the requirements for future occupiers to have to walk a distance along the unlit highway to access Poynton via Moggie Lane. This would be particularly difficult and hazardous at night, and for pedestrians with buggies and/or a disability. 26. My attention has been drawn to an alternative route into the settlement of Poynton, via a series of Public Rights of Way (PRoWs).

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Having undertaken this walk during my site visit, I observed that it involves walking through a secluded field, which may be less appealing in dark and wet conditions, climbing a relatively steep incline with some steps and navigating a narrow concrete walkway over the brook. This route to Poynton would therefore not be suitable for all users, again including pedestrians with buggies and/or a disability. 27. The appellant has stated that the nearest bus stop is 200m from the appeal site. However very limited information has been provided in respect of this bus stop, how frequently buses stop there, and the route / time buses take to get to the amenities and services that are available within Poynton. Furthermore, and in the absence of any detail to the contrary, given my previous observations in respect of the lack of footways on Moggie Lane, it would appear likely that to access this bus stop future occupiers would again have to walk within the road. 28. The appellant has commented that the 30mph speed limit to the front of the appeal site is reflective of it being within a settlement.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision The appellant has referred to an extract from the Cheshire East Council’s (Draft) 2021 Speed Management Strategy which states that the standard speed limit in village areas is 30mph, before providing a definition of a village. 29. I have not been provided with a copy of this document, or any information as to its adoption status given that it dates from 2021 and the title is “Draft”. Nor have I been provided with any guidance as to its relevance for decision making in respect of planning applications and appeals. As such, this limits the weight I can attach to this “Draft” document. 30. Nevertheless, whilst the extract from this document may state that the standard speed limit in village areas is 30mph, it does not state that all roads with a 30mph speed limit are villages. Consequently, I give this document, and the 30mph speed limit of the highway to the front of the appeal site only limited weight in my overall consideration as to whether or not the appeal site forms part of the settlement of Poynton. 31. The appellant has drawn my attention to an appeal decision3 whereby the Council argued that because a site was beyond the 30mph speed limit it did not form part of the village.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision I do not have all the information before me in respect of this appeal 3 APP/R0660/W/16/3155854 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision I do not have all the information before me in respect of this appeal 3 APP/R0660/W/16/3155854 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision decision, however note that whilst the Inspector acknowledged that the speed limit outside the appeal site was 40 mph, they still considered that the site had clear pedestrian links to the village centre and was functionally and visually part of the village. For the reasons given above, I find that this appeal decision is not therefore directly comparable to the appeal scheme before me where I have found that the appeal site is not functionally and visually part of Poynton. 32. In view of all the above, when assessing the ‘on the ground’ situation, I find that the appeal site is not physically and visually well related to the settlement of Poynton and is therefore not located in a village for the purposes of the Framework test at paragraph 154 (e). 33. In coming to the above view, I have had due regard to the appeal decisions4 provided by the appellant, whereby the Inspectors concluded that those sites formed part of a village when applying the ‘on the ground’ assessment. I have not been provided with all the details in respect of these appeal decisions, and in any case, the ‘on the ground’ assessment as to whether a site forms part of a village is reliant upon the site-specific circumstances of each case.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision As such, I cannot draw any direct comparison between these appeal decisions and the appeal scheme before me in respect of the ‘on the ground’ assessment as to whether the appeal site forms part of a village. 34. With regard to infill, the Framework does not include a definition of ‘limited infilling’. However, SADPD Policy PG 10 defines limited infilling as “the development of a relatively small gap between existing buildings”. The policy however does not define what is “a relatively small gap” and therefore I have reached my own conclusions on the appeal proposal on the basis of the evidence before me and my observations on site. Furthermore, the term infilling is essentially a matter of planning judgement for the decision maker in response to the local circumstances. 35. The provision of two dwellings is considered to be limited in terms of the scale of the development proposed. The appellant has drawn my attention to an appeal decision5 where the Inspector found that the presence of a road does not undermine the site’s ability to be an infill site and I concur with this Inspector’s findings.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision However, in this case I find that the appeal site represents a significant gap between a cluster of four dwellings situated to the north and the highway of Wardsend Lane to the south, with the property of Broomfield located on the opposite side of this highway. Directly to the south of Broomfield is a further gap before another small cluster of dwellings. 36. Directly to the east (front) of the appeal site, on the opposite side of Moggie Lane, is an undeveloped area of land. To the west (rear) of the site is a car garage, however the appeal site does not extend as far back from Moggie Lane as this car garage and therefore a gap would be retained between the appeal site and the built development on this car garage site. The appeal site is therefore directly adjoined by development on two sides, to the north and south. 37. These nearby small clusters of dwellings to the north and further south are generally surrounded by undeveloped land, and as detailed above the immediate surrounding area has a semi-rural character, with the pattern of development 4 APP/R0660/W/15/3013616 & APP/Q4245/W/21/3276225 5 APP/R0660/W/19/3233911 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision close to the appeal site being also largely fragmented. When viewed objectively in the context of the surroundings, the existing gaps between the two small clusters of houses to the north and south of the appeal site result in them being physically detached, and viewed separately, from each other; the significant gap provided by the appeal site is fundamental to this. 38. As such, I find the distance between the existing developments to the north and south of the appeal site to be substantial in the context of these small clusters of dwellings. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not infill a small gap between existing buildings and therefore would not represent limited infilling. 39. In coming to my decision, I have had regard to the appeal decision6 provided by the appellant in respect of the size of a gap that was considered to be infill. However, I have been provided with limited information in respect of the wider context of this decision in relation to matters such as the surrounding characteristics and the position of building clusters to draw any direct comparisons to the appeal proposal. In any case, I must consider the appeal on its own merits. 40.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision I note that the appellant states the proposed plot sizes and frontages would be commensurate to other plots and frontages in these clusters. Whilst this may be true for some of the dwellings within these clusters, the pair of semi-detached dwellings immediately to the north at Brooklyn and Greenacre have significantly narrower plots, and frontages onto Moggie Lane, than the appeal site. 41. I have also had regard to a nearby dismissed appeal7 whereby the Inspector acknowledged that the proposal would extend the linear pattern of development to the south, before determining that the proposal would not infill a gap. I acknowledge that the appeal proposal would also extend the existing development from the north, however for the reasons given I do not consider the appeal proposal represents limited infilling. 42. In summary of the above, I conclude that the proposal does not represent limited infilling and would not be located in a village for the purposes of the Framework test at paragraph 154 (e). The proposal would therefore conflict with the Green Belt principles as set out in LPS Policy PG 3 and Policy PG 10 of the SADPD.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Therefore, when judged against the wording of both local and national policy, the proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 43. I note LPS Policies MP 1, SD 1 and SD 2 are referred to in the Council’s reason for refusal. However, these policies do not relate to the main issue of the principle of development within the Green Belt and are therefore not determinative in relation to this matter. Effect on openness 44. Paragraph 142 of the Framework sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Openness has spatial as well as visual aspects. 6 APP/R0660/W/18/3201548 7 APP/R0660/W/17/3186293 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision 45. Whilst issues relating to scale, appearance, layout, and landscaping are all reserved matters, openness is a fundamental characteristic of the Green Belt and therefore the effect of the appeal proposal on the openness of the Green Belt must also be considered at outline stage. 46. The appeal site is largely devoid of any structures, except for a green shipping container situated adjacent to the high hedge fronting onto Moggie Lane. This hedge currently screens views of the container from this highway. I have limited information before me about the planning history of the site, including the container, but note that the appellant describes the appeal site as a paddock. 47. In its present not built upon state, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the openness of the Green Belt. The erection of up to 2no. dwellings, along with the associated works including the installation of a new 2m wide footway to the front, as well as associated paraphernalia such as cars, driveways, boundary treatments etc… would result in built development that would occupy a space that is currently not built upon. The appeal proposal would inevitably therefore reduce the spatial openness of the Green Belt.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Furthermore, the appeal proposal would not safeguard the countryside from encroachment, and thus conflicts with one of the five purposes of the Green Belt, as specified at paragraph 143 of the Framework. 48. In visual terms, the proposed dwellings, along with the aforementioned associated works and paraphernalia, would also be visible from public vantage points along the highways of Moggie Lane and Wardsend Lane. As such the appeal proposal would have a significantly greater visual impact on openness than the existing paddock. 49. In view of the above, the development of up to 2no. dwellings, and associated works and paraphernalia, into an area of land that is currently vacant and devoid of any built development, with the exception of a shipping container that is currently screened from public vantage points, would have a significantly harmful impact on the openness of the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms. The proposal would also conflict with the purpose of the Green Belt which seeks to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. These identified harms would be in addition to the inappropriateness of the scheme. 50.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would cause significant harm to the visual and spatial openness of the Green Belt. I consequently find conflict with LPS Policy PG 3, insofar as this policy seeks to keep land permanently open or largely undeveloped by safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. I also find conflict with the Framework, as openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt and one of the purposes is to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. Other considerations 51. As part of their response to the request for comments on the “National Planning Policy Framework: draft text for consultation” document and the Written Ministerial Statement, the appellant has commented that the site can be considered ‘Grey Belt’. Additionally, the appellant has stated that the Government’s proposed new method for determining housing delivery targets https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision would mean that the Council would be unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable houses. 52. As detailed earlier, the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) is a material consideration of very significant weight, as per case law8. However, the weight I can give to the changes proposed within the “National Planning Policy Framework: draft text for consultation” is limited at this stage given that no final document has been published and it is therefore subject to potential change in the future. 53. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the WMS and draft Framework propose an alteration that would provide a new ‘Grey Belt’ designation for some sites which comprise previously developed land (PDL) and any other parcels or land that make a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes. There is no dispute between the parties that the site is not PDL, however the appellant contends that the site is Grey Belt as in their opinion it makes only a limited (if any) contribution to the five purposes of the Green Belt. 54. In support of this assertion the appellant makes reference to the Local Plan (Green Belt Assessment Update – Final consolidated report: July 2015).

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision However, as I have not been provided with this document, I have made my own assessment of the contribution the site makes to the five purposes of the Green Belt. 55. I observed that the not built upon appeal site currently makes a positive contribution to the character of the area and the openness of the Green Belt, by providing a significant gap between the existing clusters of houses to the north and south, as well as a gap to the car repair garage which is set significantly back from Moggie Lane. Furthermore, the undeveloped land on the opposite side of the highway only accentuates the contribution the appeal site makes to the openness of the surrounding area. 56. As such, based on my on-site observations, the appeal site currently assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and therefore makes a significant contribution to one of the five purposes of the Green Belt. In my judgement the appeal site would not therefore meet the definition of Grey Belt land as detailed within the draft Framework and therefore the proposed development would still represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Consequently, paragraph 152 of the draft Framework, which in any case is still at consultation stage and this therefore limits the weight I can give it, would not be applicable in relation to this appeal scheme. 57. Therefore, even in a scenario whereby I was minded to accept the appellant’s argument that the new proposed housing requirement figure was applicable and it was consequently found that the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing, the aforementioned harm to the Green Belt provides a clear reason for refusing the development in accordance with paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework. As such, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the terms of the draft Framework, which is currently out for consultation and subject to change in the future, which therefore limits the weight I can give it in any case. 8 Cala Homes v SoSCLG [2011] EWCA Civ 639 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision 58. I do however appreciate that the provision of two family homes would make a positive contribution to the Council’s housing land supply, nevertheless the benefits arising from the provision of two additional dwellings would be limited. 59. Economic benefits would arise from the proposal, including contributions to the local economy during the design, planning and construction phases of the development. These however would be short term benefits. Further economic benefits would also arise from additional spending in the area by future occupants of the dwellings. Cumulatively, given the scale of development the economic support to the area arising from the appeal proposal would be relatively small. I therefore attach limited weight in respect of the economic benefits. 60. The provision of a new adoptable footway to the front of the site would provide a safe space whilst waiting for the bus. As mentioned earlier, I have not been provided with details of the exact location of the bus stop, however I acknowledge that a place to stand off the highway whilst waiting for the bus is a benefit of the appeal proposal. 61. The footway would improve pedestrian safety on Moggie Lane.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision However, the pedestrian benefit associated with this new footway, apart from providing a space to wait for the bus, is somewhat tempered by the fact that the proposed footway would not connect to any other footway along Moggie Lane. As such pedestrians would only be able to walk along a footway in front of the appeal site, and then would have to walk within the highway. Nevertheless, I attribute the provision of a section of footway to the front of the appeal site modest weight in favour of the appeal scheme. 62. The proposed works on Wardsend Lane would improve access and visibility for vehicles entering and leaving Wardsend Lane. Whilst any improvement to highway visibility and access is clearly a benefit, I have not been provided with any specific details in terms of highway notes or accident records to demonstrate that the existing junction of Wardsend Lane and Moggie Lane is particularly unsafe. Nonetheless, I attribute the proposed alterations to Wardsend Lane modest weight in favour of the appeal scheme. 63. The appellant has stated that the proposal would result in biodiversity net gain across the site through new planting and habitat creation, bird and bat boxes, as well as retention of the field ditch.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Whilst I do not have all the information before me at this stage as to exactly what the biodiversity enhancement measures would entail, and / or the amount that would be provided, I acknowledge that there would be an opportunity to increase the overall biodiversity value of the site. However, in the absence of the precise details and given the scale of the development site, I attribute this matter limited weight in favour of the appeal at outline stage. 64. The appellant has pointed to no technical objections from any statutory consultees in respect of the appeal scheme, subject to the imposition of conditions. This however is a neutral matter that neither weighs for or against the appeal proposal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Other Matters 65. The appellant has made reference to an appeal decision9, stating that this decision demonstrates the impact that a housing site coming forward can have on the character of the area. The appellant has however provided limited information as to the relevance to this decision, or indeed its relevance to any matter to the case as made by the appellant. Consequently, this limits any parallels to be drawn and the weight I can give this appeal decision. Green Belt Balance 66. The appeal proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and results in significant harm to openness. By virtue of paragraph 153 of the Framework this harm attracts substantial weight. 67. The Framework makes it clear that the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the development, must be clearly outweighed by other considerations. I find that there are matters which weigh in favour of the scheme. However, collectively these other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt identified above. 68. Consequently, the very special circumstances that are necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist in this case.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — Appeal Decision Conclusion 69. The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.

Land between Brooklyn and Broomfield, Moggie Lane, Adlington, Cheshire, SK10 4NY — Cheshire East — R Major INSPECTOR 9 APP/R0660/W/20/3252114 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/R0660/W/24/3339806