27th August 2026

https://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData-live/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=details&keyVal=TIMT1RPJ0ID00

DC/099727 a phased development of 1 to 4 self-build dwellings on land to the side of 101 Werneth Road Woodley, Stockport SK6 1HR.

The plot appears to have significant planning protection, principally as Green Belt land.

What I found

  • The location matches Land off Hillside Road, Woodley, beside Greave Primary School.
  • A recent application, DC/098449, sought permission in principle for up to 9 dwellings on that land.
  • The application was refused on 22 April 2026.
  • The planning material identifies the site as part of a much larger Green Belt parcel, RO7, in the gap between Woodley, Romiley and Hyde.
  • Stockport Council’s current Green Belt assessment and mapping confirm that the council is actively assessing Green Belt land and its contribution to preventing settlement coalescence.

Why the previous application was refused.

DELEGATION/COMMITTEE STATUS

Delegated decision.

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

The application seeks Permission in Principle for the erection of up to 9 dwellings off Hillside Road, Woodley.

The application is accompanied by and has been considered on the basis of the following documents submitted in support of the application :-

  • Application Form
  • Location Plan
  • Planning Statement

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that Permission in Principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The Permission in Principle route has two stages: the first stage (or Permission in Principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle and the second stage (Technical Details Consent) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This application relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for Permission in Principle is limited to location, land use and amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of the subsequent Technical Details Consent application if Permission in Principle is granted.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The application site is located at the eastern end of Hillside Road. Here the public highway ends and beyond that is a private single track lane that leads to a farm and collection of dwellings circa 300m from the application site to the north east. The lane forms part of the TransPennine Trail. The application site is located beyond the extent of the public highway to the south of the private lane.

The site comprises 0.38ha of pasture used for grazing of livestock and is bound to the lane by a hedge within which are trees and a gated entrance to the site. Hedges partly enclose the site to the eastern boundary with the adjacent farmland. The site slopes gently down from the east towards the dwellings on Hillside Road and Tatton Gardens.

To the west of the site on Hillside Road is a detached bungalow. Glazed doors to what appears to be a habitable room are present in the side elevation facing the application site. The bungalow and its side/rear garden are separated from the application side by a fence.

Behind the bungalow on Tatton Gardens, to the west and south of the site are 2 storey detached houses, the rear gardens of which adjoin the application site and are enclosed by various styles of fencing.

To the east and north on the other side of the private lane is open farmland. Land to the north is within the boundary of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council.

POLICY BACKGROUND

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications and appeals to be determined in accordance with the Statutory Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Statutory Development Plan for Stockport comprises :-

  • Policies set out in the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (saved UDP) adopted on the 31st May 2006 which have been saved by direction under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; and
  • Policies set out in the Stockport Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Core Strategy DPD) adopted on the 17th March 2011.

The site is located within the Green Belt. It is also designated as being in the Etherow Parklands Landscape Character Area, as defined on the UDP Proposals Map. Land adjoining to the west and southwest is within the defined Predominantly Residential Area.

The following policies are therefore relevant in consideration of the proposal :-

Saved UDP policies

  • LCR1.1: LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS
  • LCR1.1A: THE URBAN FRINGE INCLUDING THE RIVER VALLEYS
  • EP1.7: DEVELOPMENT AND FLOOD RISK
  • GBA1.1: EXTENT OF GREEN BELT
  • GBA1.2: CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN BELT
  • GBA1.5: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN GREEN BELT
  • GBA2.1: PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
  • L1.2: CHILDRENS PLAY
  • MW1.5: CONTROL OF WASTE FROM DEVELOPMENT

Core Strategy DPD policies

  • CS1: OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – ADDRESSING INEQUALITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGES
  • SD-1: CREATING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
  • SD-3: DELIVERING THE ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES PLAN: NEW DEVELOPMENT
  • SD-6: ADAPTING TO THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
  • CS2: HOUSING PROVISION
  • CS3: MIX OF HOUSING
  • CS4: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING
  • H-1: DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 
  • H-2: HOUSING PHASING
  • H-3: AFFORDABLE HOUSING 
  • CS8: SAFEGUARDING AND IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT
  • SIE-1: QUALITY PLACES
  • SIE-2: PROVISION OF RECREATION AND AMENITY OPEN SPACE IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS
  • SIE-3: PROTECTING, SAFEGUARDING AND ENHANCING THE ENVIRONMENT
  • CS9: TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT
  • CS10: AN EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT NETWORK
  • T-1: TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT
  • T-2: PARKING IN DEVELOPMENTS
  • T-3: SAFETY AND CAPACITY ON THE HIGHWAY NETWORK

Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents

Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents (SPG’s and SPD’s) do not form part of the Statutory Development Plan. Nevertheless, they do provide non-statutory Council approved guidance that is a material consideration when determining planning applications. Relevant SPG’s and SPD’s include :-

  • DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SPD
  • OPEN SPACE PROVISION AND COMMUTED PAYMENTS SPD
  • PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPG
  • SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SPD
  • SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT SPD
  • TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS SPD

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF, initially published in March 2012 and subsequently revised and published in December 2024 by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

NPPG is a web-based resource which brings together planning guidance on various topics into one place (launched in March 2014) and coincided with the cancelling of the majority of Government Circulars which had previously given guidance on many aspects of planning.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

  • DC/068254 – Outline Planning Application for a residential development of 9 bungalows. Withdrawn – 04/12/2019.

NEIGHBOUR’S VIEWS

The owners/occupiers of neighbouring properties were notified in writing of the application, and the application was advertised by way of display of notices on site and in the press.

27 letters of objection have been received which are summarised below:

  • Highways safety due to unsuitable access from narrow lane
  • Impacts from additional traffic in the locality when considered with the development of the cricket club
  • Loss of trees and mature hedgerows
  • Flood risk and drainage issues
  • History of flooding in the area
  • Site acts as a natural flood barrier to adjacent properties
  • Noise and disturbance from residential development
  • Loss of open space
  • Loss of farmland
  • Inappropriate development on Green Belt land
  • The site is not Grey Belt
  • Harm to landscape character
  • Loss of openness and encroachment into the countryside
  • Adverse impacts on flora and fauna, including protected species
  • Biodiversity impacts
  • Lack of ecological surveys
  • Adverse impact on the amenity of the area
  • Light pollution in the area
  • Loss of light and privacy to neighbours
  • Impact on local services – lack of GP’s, dentists and schools
  • Location is unsustainable
  • Design and impact on local character
  • Housing mix and affordability
  • Cumulative impact of developments in the area
  • Bus services in the area are not suitable for more development
  • Previous applications for houses on the site have been withdrawn
  • Development adjacent to 11 Hillside Road (on the opposite side of the lane) was refused by Tameside Council due to being inappropriate development in the Green Belt
  • Adverse impact on Trans Pennine Trail
  • Adverse impact on Werneth Low
  • Application is contrary to the Council’s ‘Brownfield First’ policy
  • Lack of notification to neighbouring properties
  • No demand for housing in the area
  • Insufficient information provided with the application
  • Lack of public benefit from the proposal
  • Development would result in urban sprawl

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

EHO (Contaminated Land)

No objection. Conditions recommended requiring site investigation, remediation, and validation, and investigation into gas and necessary remediation.

Highways Engineer

No objection. The proposal wouldn’t have an adverse impact on the local highways network. Suitable access could be provided onto the site for up to 9 dwellings – further details of access would be required at Technical Details stage. Parking and servicing details would need to be provided in accordance with Council standards at Technical Details stage. The site is considered to have a reasonable degree of accessibility.

Nature Development

No objection. Technical Details application would need to be supported by an ecology report, including relevant surveys of habitat, a BNG report / mandatory documents, and consideration of Great Crested Newts given location of ponds some 150m from the site. Conditions would also be needed on any Technical Details approval relating to bird nesting / vegetation removal and ecological enhancements.

Coal Authority

Site falls within the defined Development Low Risk Area. The applicant should follow Standing Advice.

United Utilities

A condition is recommended relating to drainage.

ANALYSIS

The application seeks Permission in Principle for the erection of up to 9 dwellings.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that Permission in Principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The Permission in Principle route has two stages. The first stage (or Permission in Principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle and the second stage (Technical Details Consent) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. The application relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for Permission in Principle is limited to location, land use and amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of the subsequent Technical Details Consent application if Permission in Principle is granted.

Consultee responses received to the application are noted. In accordance with the above advice contained within the PPG, matters in respect of design and impact on landscape character; impact on residential amenity; traffic generation, highway safety, parking, access and sustainable transport; trees and landscaping; impact on ecology and biodiversity; sustainable drainage; energy efficiency; and developer contributions would be considered as part of any subsequent Technical Details Consent application. As such, the main issue to consider as part of the current Permission in Principle application is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, land use and amount of development proposed.

The application site is allocated within the Green Belt. Saved UPD policy GBA1.2 states that there is a presumption against the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt unless it is for one of four purposes (agriculture and forestry; outdoor sport and recreation; limited extension or alteration of existing dwellings; or limited infilling or redevelopment of Major Existing Developed Sites (MEDS)). Saved UDP policy GBA1.5 states that within the Green Belt, new residential development will be restricted to dwellings essential for the purposes of agriculture, the re-use of buildings and development which meets the requirements of policy GBA1.7 (MEDS). The proposal clearly does not fall within any of forms of development identified within saved UDP policies GBA1.2 and GBA1.5 and is therefore considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt when assessed against saved UDP policies GBA1.2 and GBA1.5.

Whilst saved UDP policies GBA1.2 and GBA1.5 are broadly consistent with the NPPF, Paragraph 232 of the NPPF requires weight to be afforded to Local Plan policy, according to its degree of consistency with the NPPF. On this basis, the NPPF, which was introduced after adoption of the UDP, offers the most suitable and up to date policy position in relation to determination of applications for proposed development in the Green Belt. As such, greater weight should be afforded to the NPPF in consideration and determination of the application.

The NPPF states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It 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. It is noted that the 2024 updated version of the NPPF has introduced the concept of ‘Grey Belt’ land.

Para 155 of the NPPF confirms that:

The development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the following apply:

a. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan;

b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed;

c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework; and

d. Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157

The glossary to the NPPF confirms that grey belt is defined as:

Land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

The Council have therefore undertaken a review of Green Belt in the Borough to assess whether identified parcels can be considered grey belt when assessed against the five purposes that Green Belt serves, as identified by paragraph 143 of the NPPF.

This review identifies the application site as forming part of parcel RO 7 being located at the northern extent of the parcel. The site is shaded in blue in the map of the wider parcel below:

The assessment notes the following:-

  • The parcel is located on the north-eastern edge of Romiley and south-eastern edge of Woodley. It comprises a series of agricultural fields lying between the settlement edges to the west and rising land at Back-o-th’ Hill to the east. Parcel size: 8ha.
  • There are no significant boundary features to separate the parcel from the settlement. Domestic garden boundaries form a weak boundary feature between the parcel and urban areas.
  • There is some change in landform which creates a sense of separation between the settlement and the parcel. Landform rises gradually towards Back-o-th’ Hill to the east.
  • There is a strong perception of urban development outside of the Green Belt. Land has a weak boundary distinction and lies immediately adjacent to the urban edge with the sloping landform affording views west towards the urban area.
  • There is no significant urbanising development or activity in the Green Belt affecting this parcel.
  • There is a strong perception of the wider countryside limiting the impact of any existing urbanising influence. The outer boundaries to the east are generally weakly defined by broken hedgerows with some resulting visual connection with adjacent Green Belt land that steeply rises.

When considered against the purposes of including land in the Green the assessment notes the following:-

Purpose A – Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas: Strong contribution:

  • The parcel is adjacent to a large built-up area. Romiley and Woodley are both defined as being large built up areas.
  • The parcel is predominantly free from urbanising development.
  • There is substantial urbanising influence associated with development outside of the parcel.
  • There are no physical features in reasonable proximity strong enough to restrict and contain development. The parcel is defined weakly by occasional hedgerows to the east.
  • There are no physical features strong enough to restrict and contain development in the parcel, such that it would weaken the wider Green Belt’s contribution to the Green Belt purposes and through this significantly increase the potential for incongruous patterns of development.

Purpose B – Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Strong contribution:

  • The parcel lies in a fragile gap between towns. Land lies in a very narrow gap between Romiley and Woodley but existing urbanising development to the west already links them to a degree.
  • The parcel is free from urbanising development.
  • The parcel forms a substantial part of the gap. The parcel forms a large portion of the gap.
  • Development of land in the parcel would likely significantly impact visual separation between towns.

Purpose C – Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Strong contribution:

  • The parcel is part of the countryside and so contributes to preventing encroachment on it.
  • The parcel is predominantly free from urbanising development.
  • There is substantial urbanising influence associated with development outside of the parcel.
  • Development in the parcel would significantly increase the urbanising influence on adjacent open land. The parcel is defined weakly by occasional hedgerows to the east so development in the parcel would have some urbanising impact on adjacent open land to rises to the east.

Purpose D – Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: Weak/No contribution:

  • The parcel does not form part of the setting of a historic town with no visual, physical or experiential connection the historic aspects of a town.

Purpose E – Assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land: Equal contribution:

  • All Green Belt land plays an equal role in relation to this purpose.

Grey Belt –

  • The parcel makes a strong or very strong contribution to Green Belt Purposes A and B and therefore does not meet the definition of grey belt land.

Notwithstanding the above, as the application site forms only 0.38ha of this much larger wider parcel, it has been reviewed again on a micro level against the definition of grey belt.

It is noted that the application site does not include or significantly affect areas or assets in footnote 7 of the NPPF, being habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 194) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; Local Green Space, a National Landscape, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 75); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.

However, when considering the guidance outlined in the planning practice guidance [Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 64-005-20250225], the following assessment is made in respect of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143 of the NPPF:

Purpose A

The application site is considered to make a Strong contribution to this purpose for the following reasons:

  • The site is adjacent to the eastern edge of Woodley, which is a large built-up area and the edge of the area is defined by the garden boundaries of properties on Hillside Road and Tatton Gardens adjoining the site to the west. Development of the application site would extend beyond this established settlement boundary, which would have an incongruous urbanising effect visible from various vantage points, including within the Green Belt and from the well-used TransPennine Trail.
  • There is no existing urbanising development within the application site, which has a farmland character and is conducive with the character of surrounding open countryside. Development of the site for residential purposes would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt from a visual perspective.
  • The site is not distinctly separated from the wider areas of Green Belt (including other areas within RO7 and those areas within the boundary of adjacent Tameside Council) by natural or built physical features. Hedges along the eastern boundary are gappy and provide distinct views and connections between neighbouring fields and would not ‘contain’ the development within the parcel.
  • Currently, the northern boundary of the site is defined by mature trees and hedgerows. However, a large part of this natural boundary would need to be removed to provide access to the site. Therefore, the partial enclosure on this boundary would be further eroded by future development of the site, increasing the degree of harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt.

Purpose B

The application site is considered to make a Weak contribution to this purpose for the following reasons:

  • Development of the site would not result in the merging of Woodley into other nearby towns. Whilst there would be some encroachment into the established green gap with Romiley, the encroachment would be minor, and a significant area of Green Belt would be maintained between the two towns.

Purpose D

The application site is considered to make a No contribution to this purpose for the following reasons:

  • Development of the site would not affect the setting and special character of any historic towns.

In light of the above, it is considered that the application site makes a strong contribution to Green Belt purpose (a) outlined in paragraph 143 of the NPPF. The site acts as a physical barrier to restrict sprawl of a large built-up area (Woodley) into the Green Belt and its development would have an adverse impact in this regard by significantly impacting the visual openness of site and wider open countryside. As such, it is not considered that the application site meets the definition of ‘Grey Belt’ and it is considered that the proposed development would fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt, given the urbanising effect on the parcel of land when considered in the context of the surrounding Green Belt.

Accordingly, the proposed development of the site for residential purposes would constitute inappropriate development and ‘very special circumstances’ have not been demonstrated that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt in accordance with paragraph 153 of the NPPF.

Therefore, it is concluded that the location, land use and amount of development proposed is unacceptable in principle.

RECOMMENDATION

Refuse Permission in Principle.