Great Moreton Hall, New Road, Moreton, Congleton, Cheshire, CW12 4RY

demolition of three existing buildings together with the construction of three dwellings together with the repair and reinstatement of the garden walls and associated original lean-to structures within the Walled Garden

Authority: Cheshire East
Appeal type: minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure: Inquiry
Development: residential · Minor Dwellings
Inspector: Gilbert-Wooldridge T

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

whether the proposals would preserve the special interest of the Grade II* listed Great Moreton Hall and the Grade II listed walled garden and outbuildings
the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape (Appeal C only)
whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and any relevant development plan policies (Appeal A only)
the effect of the proposals on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt (Appeals A and C only)
whether the proposals would be in an appropriate location having regard to the development plan and national policies (Appeals A and C only)
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 required to justify the proposals (Appeals A and C only)

What decided it

Whether the heritage conservation benefits of each scheme clearly outweighed the harm caused to the listed buildings and the Green Belt determined the outcome: insufficient in Appeal A (dismissed) but sufficient in Appeal C (allowed).

For Appeal A, the substantial Green Belt harm and significant less-than-substantial heritage harm were not clearly outweighed by the heritage and minor housing/economic benefits, so the appeal was dismissed; for Appeal C, the considerable heritage conservation benefits (reinstatement of the walled garden and removal of 1960s buildings) clearly outweighed the Green Belt, landscape and heritage harm, so very special circumstances existed and the appeal was allowed.

Framework references: 80, 105, 110, 130, 137, 138, 147, 148, 149, 174, 199, 200, 202

Plan policies cited: Policy SD1, Policy SD2, Policy SE1, Policy SE2, Policy SE4, Policy SE7, Policy CO1, Policy PG3, Policy BH1, Policy BH4, Policy BH5, Policy PS6, Policy PS7, Policy H6, Policy H16, Policy GR9, Policy GR10, Policy P1, Policy P4, Policy P11, Policy P13, Policy P18, Policy P26

Judgments cited: Tandridge DC v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 2503 (Admin)

Read the decision letter on the Inspectorate’s site

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.