Appeal 6002987

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 6 dwellings at [address], [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/0357.

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.1 All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

An applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission is sought for a minimum of four and a maximum of six dwellings. A Proposed Site Plan, Floorplans and Elevations were submitted as part of the application. I have treated these as being for illustrative purposes only.

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

The appeal site is in the Green Belt. It comprises a steeply banked grassed parcel of land which is located along the eastern side of [site address] a short distance from the southern boundary of No.6 [site address] , a dwelling.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, stating that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions in paragraph 154 or 155 of the Framework apply.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework provides that the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where criteria a) to d) are met.

Criterion a) is that 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. The definition of ‘grey belt’ is provided by Annex 2 of the Framework as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to the Green Belt purposes at (a), (b) or (d) of paragraph 143 of the Framework. These purposes are: (a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; and (d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

In this case, the appeal site is not previously developed land, and the Council does not assert that the site strongly contributes to purpose (a) or (d). Therefore, the disagreement is whether the appeal site strongly contributes to purpose (b).

The PPG sets out considerations for informing judgements as to whether land is grey belt.2 In respect of purpose (b) it states that assessment areas that contribute strongly are likely to be free of existing development, form a substantial part of a gap between towns and if developed would be likely to result in the loss of visual separation of towns.

The Council’s ‘Green Belt Review’ (2016) (GBR) considered the appeal site as part of a much larger, triangular parcel of land ([name]. 07) which broadly extends between [site address] , [address], [address] and a section of the A56. It found that [name]. 07 contributes strongly to the purpose of preventing the neighbouring towns of [name] and Haslingden from merging into one another.

However, the GBR pre-dates the introduction of the ‘grey belt’ concept in the Framework. The assessment in respect of [name]. 07 relates to an area of land that significantly exceeds that of the appeal site, which is contrary to the PPG’s approach to Green Belt assessments to be used in the development management process3. Consequently, it is not sufficiently granular to enable the 2 [name]: 005 [name]: 64-005-20250225 3 [name]: 009 [name]: 64-009-20250225 assessment of the variable contribution of land to Green Belt purposes.4 Accordingly, I attach only moderate weight to the GBR findings.

The GBR identified Tier 1, 2 and 3 settlements (as then defined in the [name], 2011) as ‘towns’ for the purposes of the assessment. The appeal site is free of existing development and is located between the towns of Haslingden and [name] (Tier 2 and Tier 3 settlements respectively) which are relatively close to one another. However, even in combination with the site subject of a separate appeal5, it comprises only a very small parcel of land and, despite projecting away from the existing dwellings along [site address] , it does not form a substantial part of the gap between these two towns.

Moreover, the undulating topography of the intervening land means that there is limited intervisibility between Haslingden and [name]. This is recognised in the GBR assessment. Further, land levels steeply rise to the east and south from the appeal site and from [site address] , and consequently the proposed development would not likely result in the loss of visual separation between the towns. For these reasons, in my judgement, the appeal site does not strongly contribute to the Green Belt purpose of preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another.

As the appeal site does not make a strong contribution to Green Belt purposes (a), (b) or (d), the appeal site falls under the definition of grey belt land as set out in the Framework. There is no dispute between the parties that it would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan and there is nothing before me to disagree.

The Council’s evidence is that they are currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land. In accordance with footnote 56 of the Framework, there is therefore a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.

I observed there to be a reasonable range of services and facilities a short distance to the north of the appeal site in [name], including a restaurant, café, gym, nursery and primary school. Bus services are also available from the A680 ([address]). I observed that the footway along the opposite side of [site address] ends just before the appeal site, at a point where the lane noticeably narrows. However, despite no immediate streetlighting, [site address] appeared a quiet country lane and the absence of a footway across the frontage of the appeal site would not prevent easy access to these amenities by foot. Future occupiers of the proposed development would not therefore be wholly reliant on the private car.

Further, whilst I note the sloping nature of the site, there is no robust and compelling evidence that a safe and suitable access could not be achieved, particularly given the quiet nature of [site address] . The detailed provision of sight lines would be a matter for the technical details consent stage. Accordingly, I find the site to be in a sustainable location. As such, there would be no conflict with Policy TR1 of the Rossendale Local Plan 2019 to 2036 (2021) (LP) in so far as it seeks to reduce the need to travel. 4 [name]: 004 [name]: 64-004-20250225 5 6002989

As the development would utilise grey belt land and meet the requirements of paragraph 155 of the Framework, it would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently, there is no need for me to consider the exception to inappropriate development at paragraph 154 e) of the Framework, or the effect on openness. The site is suitable for development having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development proposed. It would accord with LP Policy SD1 where is states that planning applications that accord with policies in the Local Plan will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

I note concerns raised by interested parties regarding the excavation works which would be required and the effect of the proposed development on, among other matters, the supply of water, drainage, traffic congestion and wildlife. However, these matters do not fall within the scope of consideration at the first stage of the permission in principle process and would therefore be considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application.

I also recognise the Council’s concerns regarding the appellant’s intention to undertake further development elsewhere on the landholding, but each application and appeal must be determined on its own merits, and that is what I have done in this case.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.