Appeal 6003980

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for a minimum of 5 dwellings and a maximum of 9 dwellings at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of application, Ref. 25/01181/PIP.

An application for costs has been made by [name] against Chorley Borough Council, and this is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal has been made against the failure of the Council to determine the application within the prescribed period. As such, it did not issue a decision notice or accompanying reasons for refusal. However, the Council’s Statement identifies two principal concerns with the proposal, which establish the main issues below.

The Council has referred to policies in the emerging Central Lancashire Local Plan 2023-2041 (CLLP). Although the [name] is at a relatively advanced stage, correspondence from the examining Inspectors of March 2026 advised the Council that there were ‘fundamental soundness issues’ which would need to be addressed. On the information before me, I cannot be certain that these issues can be overcome or that the CLLP will not substantively change. Accordingly, I can give it only limited weight.

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. A developer may apply for permission in principle for residential development of land, providing it is not ‘major development.’ For the provision of dwellinghouses, Part 1, Article 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (DMPO) defines ‘major development’ as involving development where: (i) the number of dwellinghouses to be provided is 10 or more; or (ii) the development is to be carried out on a site having an area of 0.5ha or more and it is not known whether the development falls within (i).

In this case, the site area is 0.43ha and the planning application form identifies the new number of dwellings as a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 9. Accordingly, the proposal does not fall within the DMPO definition of ‘major development.’

Nevertheless, the Council assert that when combined with land controlled by the appellant immediately to the north, the total site area would exceed 0.5ha and would trigger the ‘[name] at paragraph 156-157 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). In case law1 referred to by the Council, it was accepted that three criteria should be applied to determine the factual question of whether two development proposals could be aggregated or considered to form part of a larger whole. These were ownership, whether the areas of land could be considered to be a single site for planning purposes, and whether the development should be treated as a single development.

It is accepted that both parcels of land to which the Council refer are in the ownership of the appellant. However, despite the land parcels being contiguous with each other with no physical demarcation, I have no persuasive evidence that the appeal proposal has been conceived as part of a larger scheme or should be treated as one single site. Moreover, despite reference to meeting biodiversity requirements, I am not aware of any proposal for development of the northern land parcel such that there could be a single development. Consequently, I find there has been no artificial or arbitrary subdivision of land, and I have considered the proposal which is before me, and which was duly accepted and validated by the Council as an application for permission in principle.

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 permitted. All other matters, including affordable housing, if necessary, are considered as part of the technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. Any subsequent technical details consent, as a grant of planning permission, would also be subject to the biodiversity net gain condition. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The appeals decided at land to the northeast of Shelley Drive2 and land east of Bradley Lane3 which are both just outside Eccleston are material considerations.

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 particular reference to: 1 New Dawn Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Tewksbury Borough Council [2016] EWHC 3314 (Admin) 2 3376051 3 3376087 • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; and • whether the proposed development makes efficient and effective use of land.

The appeal site is in the Green Belt. The Council refer to Policy BNE5 of the Chorley Local Plan 2012 to 2026 (2015) (LP) which covers circumstances where redevelopment of all previously-developed sites in the Green Belt would be permitted. This policy is inconsistent with the Framework as the circumstances do not reflect the exceptions to inappropriate development at paragraph 154 or 155. Accordingly, I have relied on the Framework in determining whether the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development.

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.

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.

‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) of the Framework would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. It is not in dispute between the parties that the site does not fall within any of these areas or assets.

The Council does not assert that the site strongly contributes to the purposes at paragraph 143 of the Framework, namely: (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. Interested parties suggest that Eccleston has been mischaracterised, but I did not find it to be a large built-up area or town, rather it is of a scale and has services consistent with a larger village. Therefore, on the evidence before me and my own observations, I have no reason to form a different view to the Council.

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.

However, there is disagreement as to whether the proposal satisfies the second part of paragraph 155 a) of the Framework. The Council assert it would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan, specifically purpose (c) which is to assist in the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment. Paragraph 155 a) is not confined to the effect of development on the appeal site or its immediate surroundings, nor to a single Green Belt purpose in isolation, but requires an evaluative judgement of whether the development would affect the ability of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area to serve all five Green Belt purposes in a meaningful way.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of grassed land which is off [address], a residential cul-de-sac at the south-eastern edge of Eccleston. The proposal would extend beyond this built form, but it would relate well to the settlement and would be partially contained by other dwellings to the south which front [name]. Consequently, encroachment into the countryside would be modest.

The Council has drawn my attention to decisions for new housing which they consider to be effectively developing a ‘ring’ around Eccleston, thereby fundamentally undermining the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The Plan in the appellant’s evidence shows these would clearly result in pockets of new development on the outskirts of Eccleston. However, even when taken together with the appeal site, such development evidently forms only a very small part of the surrounding Green Belt, and they do not significantly ‘eat away’ at the Green Belt boundary or extend into the countryside. Moreover, they form an even smaller part of the Green Belt across the plan area which the appellant has stated comprises over 14.5k ha. of land.

In respect of paragraph 143 purpose (e) of the Framework, I have no substantive evidence before me that the proposal would in any way affect the ability to assist urban regeneration or the recycling of derelict or other urban land.

Therefore, in my judgement, whilst there would be modest encroachment into the countryside, the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan.

The Council accept that they are currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land. Although my attention has been drawn to the emerging CLLP, the recent Examination correspondence of March 2026 raises concerns about whether Chorley can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. There is therefore a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.

The appeal site would be in a sustainable location. It is located adjacent to existing housing on the south-eastern edge of Eccleston, within reasonable walking distance of a range of shops and services, including a Sainsbury’s Local, [name], pharmacy and library. [name] recognise interested parties have raised concerns about the practical safety of pedestrian routes in winter, there would nevertheless be continuous footways between the proposed development and these services. Aligning with paragraph 83 of the Framework, residents of the development would support these existing services, enhancing the vitality of the rural community.

Further, there are bus stops close-by along [name] with services to higher order centres such as Preston, Wigan and Chorley. Whilst services may be infrequent, they nonetheless offer a choice of transport modes, mindful that paragraph 110 of the Framework acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas.

As explained in my Preliminary Matters, the proposal is not major development and consequently the ‘[name] requirements at paragraphs 156-157 of the Framework are not applicable in this case.

For the reasons above, the appeal site is grey belt land, and the proposed development would meet the requirements of paragraph 155 of the Framework. Accordingly, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Therefore, I am not required to consider any effects on the openness of the Green Belt, or if very special circumstances exist to justify the development.

The Council has calculated that if the maximum 9 dwellings were built the development would have a density of 20.9 dwellings per hectare (dph). For the minimum of 5 dwellings, it would obviously be much lower. Both parties have referred to existing roads or parts of development in Eccleston which range in density between 22dph and 24dph. Further, I note that development allowed to the north-east of Shelley Drive4 would have a density of between 2 and 18dph, depending on the number of dwellings built. However, the location of the appeal site at the end of the cul-de-sac means the development would be visually and spatially most closely related to the existing residential development on [address], which the Council has calculated has a density of 22dph.

Interested parties are concerned that the development of 9 dwellings would be too dense, or overly intensive. However, whilst a matter for the technical detail consent stage, subject to suitable design, layout and landscaping, I can see no reason why the maximum 9 dwellings proposed could not be delivered. It would still allow for a good degree of separation from the existing dwellings at the end of [address] and from the rear gardens of those dwellings fronting [name], reflecting the slightly looser form of this development. Even on the Council’s own calculation, the maximum 9 dwellings would be broadly comparable in density to [address].

I therefore conclude that the proposal would make efficient and effective use of land. Consequently, there would be no conflict with Policy 5 of the [name] (2012) (CS) which seeks to secure densities which are in keeping with local areas and requires consideration to be given to making efficient use of land. There would also be no conflict with LP Policy BNE1 which supports new development which, amongst other things, would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area, including by virtue of its density.

If weight were afforded to CLLP Policy HS6, the proposal would accord with the stated minimum gross density of 21dph for all housing developments in locations outside settlement boundaries.

I have had regard to CS Policy 1 which seeks to focus growth and investment in accordance with a settlement hierarchy. However, nothing in this policy precludes small-scale development in other locations or deals with development in the Green Belt. There is no dispute between the parties that the site is outside the defined settlement boundary of Eccleston, so LP Policy HS7 which contains criteria for infilling for housing in smaller villages is not determinative in this case. 4 3376051

Further, LP Policy HS4A deals with the open space requirements in new housing developments which would be a matter considered at the technical detail consent stage. Based on the submissions, I can see no conflict with those other development plan policies referred to by the Council and interested parties.

I did not observe it to be particularly steep, but interested parties raise concern over the safety of the access due to the gradient of [address]. I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include age and disability. I have no technical evidence before me that the access arrangements to either [address] or [address] would not be suitable for all users, or that there are overriding highway safety issues. It is therefore proportionate to allow the appeal for permission in principle.

I also have no substantive evidence that the proposed location, land use and amount of development, either on its own or in combination with other housing development in or around Eccleston, would place undue pressure on local infrastructure, the highway network or local services.

Concerns have been raised that allowing the appeal would set a precedent and make it difficult to resist further incremental applications on adjoining land. [name] recognise that consistency in the planning process is important and like cases should be decided in a like manner, each case is determined on its individual circumstances and merits. Accordingly, my decision in this case would not harm the ability of the Council to exercise their judgement on future proposals.

Having considered the matters of location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, no conflict with the development plan has been identified and having considered other material considerations, including the Framework, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.