Appeal 6002973

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Chorley Council. That application is subject to a separate decision.

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 two 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 two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters would be considered as part of a subsequent [name] (TDC) application if permission in principle is granted.

The Council failed to determine the application within the prescribed time. However, It states that it would have refused permission based on the proposal being inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which in the absence of very special circumstances would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

A consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 16 December 2025. Given that this is at the consultation stage 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]. and taking into account the matters before me, I do not consider it necessary to invite comments from the parties. Any reference to the Framework is based on the current version, dated December 2024.

The Central Lancashire Authorities comprising Preston City Council, South Ribble Borough Council and Chorley Council are preparing a new development plan, the Central Lancashire Local Plan (CCLP) 2023 – 2041. The appeal documents indicate that this is at an advanced stage. A hearing has taken place and the appellant has submitted a document comprising a post hearing statement from the Inspectors examining the emerging local plan2. Whilst the preparation of the plan is at an advanced stage that could warrant affording it substantial weight, the submitted document indicates concerns about the soundness of the plan and, relevant to this appeal, raises concerns about housing land supply. Although requested, I have no further comments from the Council and therefore the weight I can afford the emerging plan with particular reference to housing land supply is limited.

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 with regard to: - • whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any impact on openness; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

The appeal site comprises a large detached building, formerly a restaurant, its car park and an additional area of grassed land. The whole of the site is within the Green Belt and therefore the acceptability of the location of the proposed development falls to be assessed in this context.

The Framework explains that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It makes it clear that development is considered inappropriate unless it satisfies one of the exceptions cited in paragraphs 154 and 155.

The proposed dwellings would not fall into any of the exceptions cited in paragraph

This is not disputed by the parties. Paragraph 155 allows the development of homes where 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; there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; and the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. 2 Planning Inspectorate Letter dated 4 March 2026. The requirement to meet the [name] is not applicable due to the scale of the proposal.

The Framework defines grey belt. In addition to previously developed land this includes other land. In either case, an assessment is required to be made as to whether the land strongly contributes to purposes (a), (b) or (d) of the purposes of Green Belts set out in paragraph 143 of the Framework. These are (a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (b) to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; and (d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Neither party disputes conflict with these criteria and I have no reason to come to any other conclusion. Furthermore, the proposal would not fall within an area listed in footnote 7 of the Framework. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appeal site would meet the definition of grey belt.

However, paragraph 155 of the Framework goes further than simply allowing the development of grey belt land, it also requires the development not to fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. Criterion (c) of paragraph 143 states a purpose of Green Belt is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

The appeal site includes [site address] Restaurant building itself and a large car park. Given the extent of building and hardstanding I am satisfied that development here would not fundamentally harm the countryside through encroachment. The additional area of land is an anomaly and physically is unrelated to [site address] ’s site. It is an area of grassed land, clearly open and visually contributes to the unbuilt area around [site address] . Development of this area would not safeguard the countryside from encroachment.

However, paragraph 155 requires the development to utilise grey belt land and not fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. Although, the proposal would encroach into the countryside it would not conflict with the other purposes of the Green Belt. Consequently, there is not a strong argument to justify conflict with paragraph 155 (a).

Paragraph 155 (b) of the Framework requires a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. The Council acknowledge that it currently cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land as required by the Framework. As referred to above, The Central Lancashire Authorities comprising Preston City Council, South Ribble Borough Council and Chorley Council are preparing a new development plan, the Central Lancashire Local Plan (CCLP) 2023 – 2041. The Council state that the housing requirements would be spread between the three authorities, Chorley Council claim that its acknowledged shortfall would be met by neighbouring authorities thereby negating its shortfall.

However, given that I have afforded the emerging Local Plan limited weight based on the evidence submitted, I am satisfied that there is an unmet need. Paragraph 155 (b) would therefore be met.

Paragraph 155 (c) requires development to be in a sustainable location with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. Paragraph 110 seeks to focus development in locations that are or which can be made sustainable through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. It recognises that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Paragraph 115 sets out criteria for sustainable transport modes; safe and accessible access; the design of streets; and any impact on the transport network.

Bus stops in [address] and [address] are referred to but no details of any bus services have been submitted. There is also a farm shop at [address] close by and a pub, The Travellers Rest, is located further along the road to the east. The appellant describes a convenience store to the west. However, these facilities are very limited and future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would very likely rely on a car to access any facilities other than the most basic.

I note an appeal decision on a nearby site in Southport Road3. I do not have full details of that site or the details submitted with the appeal but in that case, the site is considered to be in a sustainable location. [site address] appeal site is fairly close to the [address] site but the [address] site is described as being close to some facilities in the immediate locality and the availability of public transport connecting to the wider area. I do not have the evidence that persuades me that the same assessment applies here. The proposal would therefore conflict with paragraph 155 (c) of the Framework.

The Framework is clear that development of homes should not be regarded as inappropriate where all of the criteria, (a), (b) and (c) apply. I found that criteria (a) and (b) would be met but (c) would not. The proposal would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Furthermore, due to the openness of the large area of car park and the additional open field, development other than on the site of the building itself would have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework describes a fundamental characteristic of Green Belts is their openness.

Given that there is a shortfall in housing land supply, paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework is engaged. This establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would be capable of delivering up to nine dwellings which would be a worthwhile contribution. However, in this case, there would be a delay in delivering the number of dwellings applied for, not least due to the PIP procedure. This first stage does not grant planning permission. The second stage of the procedure, as set out in my procedural paragraph above, would need to be applied for and approved before a workable delivery programme could be implemented. No suggestion has been made as to when these dwellings could result in new homes in practical terms.

The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to 3 Planning Appeal Ref: APP/D2320/W/25/3362468. justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm, by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other circumstances. I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development and would also cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Harm caused by inappropriateness carries substantial weight.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. I am not clear of the scale of the shortfall but the provision of up to nine dwelling would make a contribution. However, when these would be delivered affects the weight I can give to this shortfall. In this case, the proposal would be reliant on the PIP procedure and the need for a TDC before any dwellings could be provided. The harm caused by inappropriateness is substantial, added to this would be harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the very special circumstances required to clearly outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness, and any other harm, including openness, do not exist. This would conflict with the Framework.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.