Planning appeal decision
Carlisle House, Knutsford Road, Knolls Green, Mobberley, Knutsford, Cheshire, WA16 7BA
Planning appeal 3366704 at Carlisle House, Knutsford Road, Knolls Green, Mobberley, Knutsford, Cheshire, WA16 7BA (Cheshire East) was dismissed on 15 September 2025 by Inspector Hitchcock R, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether or not the Authority's decision to refuse the LDC was well founded.
the ‘Construction of a single storey dwelling with access, landscaping and associated work’
- Authority
- Cheshire East
- Appeal type
- ldc · Lawful Development Certificate
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Hitchcock R
- Postcode
- WA16 7BA
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether or not the Authority's decision to refuse the LDC was well founded
- whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised Framework and any relevant development plan policies
- if found inappropriate, the effect on the openness of the Green Belt
- the effect on the Open Countryside
- the effect on Great Crested Newts
- 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 proposal
What decided it
The substantial weight given to the benefits of real-world testing of graphene-enhanced construction materials, combined with housing need, clearly outweighed the Green Belt and countryside harm, establishing very special circumstances to justify allowing Appeal B, while the absence of curtilage status defeated Appeal A.
The substantial harm from inappropriateness, limited harm to openness, and minor countryside policy conflict were clearly outweighed by the substantial benefits of the GE materials research project and housing need, amounting to very special circumstances justifying the grant of permission.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy PG3Policy PG6Policy SD2 (Table 9.1)Policy SE3Policy ENV2
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 57Paragraph 84Paragraph 110Paragraph 115Paragraph 139Paragraph 143Paragraph 154Paragraph 155
- Judgments
- Hiley v SoS [2022] EWHC 1289 (Admin); Dyer v Dorset CC [1988] 3 WLR 213; Sinclair-Lockhart's Trustees v Central Land Board (1950) 1 P&CR 195; Burford v SSCLG & Test Valley BC [2017] EWHC 1493 (Admin); [2017] JPL 1300; Blackbushe Airport Limited v Hampshire County Council and SSEFRA [2021] EWCA Civ 398
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 East
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Dismissed13 October 20266009638The Smithy, Adlington Road, Wilmslow, SK9 2LN
- Dismissed8 October 202660108534 St Peters Avenue, Knutsford, WA16 0DN
- Allowed5 October 20266008576Land At Racecourse Road - Greaves Road, Racecourse Road - Greaves Road, Wilmslow, SK9 5LW
- Allowed2 October 20266010578Land at Dunvilles Farm, Bollington Lane, Chelford Road, Monks Heath, Macclesfield, SK10 4UL
- Dismissed30 September 20266010213Disley Meadow, Lower Greenshall Lane, Disley, SK12 2HH
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.
®