®Planning appeal decision
Tushingham Arena, Bell O The Hill Road, Tushingham Cum Grindley, Malpas, SY13 4QR
Planning appeal 3303867 at Tushingham Arena, Bell O The Hill Road, Tushingham Cum Grindley, Malpas, SY13 4QR (Cheshire West and Chester) was dismissed on 23 December 2022 by Inspector Ollerenshaw M, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the proposed development is consistent with development plan policy relating to the location of housing and the reuse of rural buildings.
Conversion of existing equestrian building to accommodate manager's 3-bedroom accommodation, 3 No 2-bed holiday lets, cafe with covered outside eating area, kitchen, store and toilets and 6 No stables
- Authority
- Cheshire West and Chester
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- leisure-sport · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Ollerenshaw M
- Postcode
- SY13 4QR
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposed development is consistent with development plan policy relating to the location of housing and the reuse of rural buildings
- the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the countryside
- whether there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at the location of the proposal
- the effect of the proposed development on the vitality and viability of town centres
- the effect of the proposed development on highway safety
What decided it
The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole on multiple grounds—unsustainable location, building conversion standards, absence of essential need for a rural worker's dwelling, lack of sequential test for the café, and unacceptable highway safety risk—with no material considerations sufficient to outweigh these conflicts.
The modest economic and social benefits of rural diversification, employment creation and tourist accommodation were given limited weight and did not outweigh the identified harms and development plan conflicts.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- STRAT1STRAT2STRAT8STRAT9ECON2DM7DM9DM19DM22DM3DM8DM25STRAT10T5
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 80Paragraph 84Paragraph 87Paragraph 56
- Judgments
- Hibbitt and Another v SSCLG & Rushcliffe BC [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin)
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in Cheshire West and Chester
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2022
- Dismissed27 October 20266008480Moorsbarrow Hall Farm, Brereton Lane, Sproston, CW10 0JX
- Allowed22 October 20266009366Land Adjacent Mangoletsi Ltd, London Road, Allostock, Northwich, WA16 9NS
- Dismissed22 October 20266002634Four Winds, Liverpool Road, Neston, CH64 3RF
- Dismissed21 October 20266013998Holly Cottage, Post Office Lane, Norley, WA6 8NB
- Dismissed16 October 2026601555617 Leaf Grove, Winsford, CW7 2GE
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.