Appeal 6002977

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs has been made by [name] against West Lancashire Borough Council.

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. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

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 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. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone].

The main issues are 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 relevant development plan policies; • the effect of flooding at the site or in the vicinity of it; • the effect on the provision of agricultural land in the area; 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 an area of open land and an access from [address]. The access runs between Nos 19 and 21, both residential properties fronting the road. To the south there is a group of buildings including a long row of glasshouses close to the boundary. Other than the access the main body of the site is open grassland with a sunken ditch running around three sides of it. Whilst part of the access is in the settlement, described as a Rural Sustainable Village in the development plan, the rest is within the Green Belt.

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. It also requires development to meet the [name] if applicable. As this development would not be classed as a major one, the [name] are not applicable in this case.

The Framework defines grey belt as being previously developed land and/or other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of the purposes (a), (b), or (c) in paragraph 143. Furthermore, ‘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. Footnote 7 includes areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.

Part of the site has been identified as being in [name] 2. Although there is no requirement for a site layout as part of this PIP application, the appellant has submitted an indicative one to indicate that the houses could be located on the parts of the site outside [name] 2. However, no Flood Risk Assessment or any analysis of the risks of flooding has been submitted. The appellant considers that this should form part of the TDC application.

I agree that sometimes the technical issues relating to flood risk would be dealt with under a TDC application but in this case, the appellant is claiming that the site is grey belt. It is therefore fundamental to assess whether or not the appeal site falls within footnote 7 as this is specifically referred to in defining a site’s assessment as grey belt. The ditch all around three sides of the site indicates some sort of watercourse and although the ditch is set at a lower level to the land, its physical presence indicates that there is the potential for flooding.

I note the appellant’s reference to another appeal decision2 in which the Inspector was satisfied that the risk of flooding would not provide a strong reason for refusing development. However, in that case, the site is referred to as being in [name] 1 and other than information from third parties about flooding in the area, there was no clear reason why any flooding concerns raised could not be dealt with at the TDC stage. This is quite different from [address] site as part of the site is within [name] 2 and the physical presence of the substantial ditch around a large part of the site cannot be discounted. The lack of evidence at this stage therefore gives me no assurance that flooding would not be a strong reason to resist development and therefore footnote 7 is applicable.

Therefore, on the basis of the evidence before me, I cannot reasonably conclude that the site is grey belt. The proposal would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would conflict with the Framework and Local Plan3 Policy GN1 which requires proposals for development in the Green Belt to be assessed against national policy and any relevant Local Plan policies. The Council’s SPD for Development in the Green Belt4 reflects the thrust of the Framework but predates it so is not entirely up to date. Nonetheless, the harm due to inappropriateness carries substantial weight.

Flooding

As referred to above, addressing matters of flooding could be done at the TDC stage but whilst it is a fundamental matter in the assessment of the site as grey belt, that cannot be the case here.

I accept that some aspects of any flooding impacts and further assessments including a sequential and/or exception test and even appropriate mitigation may be details that would fall under stage 2 of the PIP procedure. However, for the reasons I have stated the lack of information at this stage is such that development in principle cannot be approved on the basis of the potential harmful effect of flooding at the site or in the vicinity of it.

The proposal would therefore conflict with Local Plan Policy GN3 which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development does not result in flood risk or drainage problems and is located away from [name] 2 and 3 wherever possible. This is consistent with the Framework which also directs development 2 Planning Appeal Ref: APP/D2320/W/25/3362388. 3 West Lancashire Local Plan 2012 – 2027 Development Plan Document October 2013. 4 West Lancashire Borough Council Supplementary Planning Document Development in the Green Belt October 2015 (SPD). away from areas at highest risk of flooding (paragraph 170). Both advise [name] and sequential and/or exception tests as appropriate.

The Council refer to the site as being classed as Grade 1 - Best and [name] land in the Natural England Provisional Agricultural Land Classification dataset. A copy of this has not been submitted. The appellant refers to the site as being classed as Grade 2 in the [name] map [name] (an extract of the map has been submitted). However, the appellant’s evidence indicates that from field inspection and soil analysis the soil is more likely Grade 4 or Grade 3b at best. The grading ranges from Grade 1 - excellent agricultural land to Grade 4 – poor quality agricultural land. Grade 2 would be very good; Grade 3 is divided into a) and b) – good to moderate.

Given that this is a matter that requires technical analysis, I consider that the effect on the provision of agricultural land in the area is a matter that would be dealt with at the TDC stage in order to satisfy Local Plan Policy EN2 which, amongst other things, seeks to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a).

There is no dispute amongst the parties that the Council does not have a five year supply of housing land as required by the Framework. The proposed four to nine dwelling would make a modest but worthwhile contribution to this. However, the substantial weight afforded by reason of inappropriateness and the potential risk of flooding carry substantial weight. Therefore, the adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

My attention has been brought to a recent [address] judgement5. This case looked at the definition of grey belt and considered whether footnote 7 provided a strong reason for refusing development. The site is near to the Kent Downs National Landscape and the Inspector found that the proposal for a truck stop facility found only limited or localised harm and therefore footnote 7 did not provide a strong reason to resist development. The judgement accepted that the site was grey belt.

The Wrotham case differs from this one in that the evidence is lacking to justify that there would not be a strong case for refusing permission. In this case, there is no dispute that part of the site is within [name] 2 and for the reasons stated above, the principle of development cannot be accepted. This does not mean that should the evidence prove otherwise, footnote 7 may not preclude development.

The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm, by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other 5 Wrotham Parish Council v SoS and Moto Hospitality Ltd and Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2026] EWHC 165 (Admin) – 30/01/26. circumstances. I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development and would also result in harm in relation to flooding. Harm caused by inappropriateness carries substantial weight.

There is currently a shortfall in a five year supply of housing land but I have concluded 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, do not exist. This would conflict with the Framework and Local Plan Policies GN1 and GN3.

Given that I have found that the location would be unacceptable due to the proposal being inappropriate development, there is no reason for me to expand further on matters of land use or the amount of development.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.