Appeal 6001385

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. The application includes an indicative site layout. Whilst this is illustrative only, it demonstrates the site’s capacity. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The flat appeal site, comprising grazing land, is sandwiched between an adjacent single-storey detached dwelling located at the junction of [address] and [site address] , known as “Woodlands” and the railway line. A portion of the appeal site is directly adjacent to [address], with intervening trees and bushes screening the proposal from existing two storey terraced dwellings on the opposite side of the narrow road.

The appeal site is identified as falling within site S3 – South of [address], [address], Farington in the South Ribble Borough Council Local Plan (2012-

(adopted July 2015) (LP) and forms safeguarded land. Policy G3 of the LP sets out that such sites within the Borough remain safeguarded and not designated for any specific purpose within the Plan period. The adopted LP carries substantial weight.

The proposal would also fall within Site HS3.2, [address], and be subject to draft Policy HS3 ([name] for [name]) of the emerging Central Lancashire Local Plan (CLLP). It sets out land to be allocated and protected for housing development. Site HS3.2, which has an area of 16.06Ha is dissected by [site address] and the railway line and would provide around 435 dwellings. Level agricultural land adjoining the rear of the site towards the sweeping [site address] and a triangular portion of land with a stable structure located next to the site on [address] fall within the wider allocation site.

The emerging CLLP’s policies and sites are presently under examination. As set out in paragraph 49 of the Framework the more advanced its preparation the greater the weight that may be given. The emerging CLLP must carry moderate weight given the clear transition from safeguarded land to a site protected for housing. (a) Location and Amount of Development

From the evidence before me the location and the amount of development of up to nine dwellings, would be acceptable to both main parties and I find no reason to disagree with these conclusions. (b) [name]

Policy G3 of the LP states that existing uses will for the most part remain undisturbed during the Plan period or until the Plan is reviewed, and, that planning permission will not be granted for development which would prejudice potential longer term, comprehensive development of the land. The policy justification states a presumption against development in order to direct development towards areas already allocated and to ensure the permanence and openness of this Green Belt land. However, it sets out that some appropriate minor residential development adjacent to other properties would be considered.

Whilst the proposed, minor development, would be situated on the periphery of the wider allocation site, no information has been provided to demonstrate that either access through the site to other sections of adjoining land would be achieved, or, that the appellant has worked collaboratively with adjacent landowners to ensure future development of the overall site is not inhibited.

The appellant sets out that land to the rear could be accessed from [site address] , however this would not accord with the Highway Key Development Consideration (KDC) of the draft CLLP, which states there are options to secure suitable site access, potentially from [address] or [address] with early dialogue recommended with the Highways Authority.

It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not preclude landowners from being able to work collaboratively to bring forward and demonstrate a comprehensive and integrated development proposal. This would not align with a further KDC set out in draft policy HS3 to facilitate good placemaking.

Taking everything together, and notwithstanding the location and size, the proposal would fail to accord with Policy G3 of the adopted South Ribble Borough Council Local Plan, as amongst other things, it would prejudice potential longer term, comprehensive development of the wider safeguarded land and would not facilitate the existing use.

The Council argue that the proposal would be premature when assessed against the emerging CLLP. Having regard to Paragraph 50 a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and relating to this Permission in Principle application, I agree with the appellant that the proposed development is not so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of a new development central to the emerging CLLP. Nevertheless, as I have found that the scheme would be in conflict with adopted Policy G3, this matter does not alter my overall conclusions.

In summary, whilst the proposal would be acceptable in terms of location and amount of development permitted, it would not form an appropriate land use.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole and the Framework. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.