Appeal 6004429

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs is made by [name] against Chorley Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal is against the Council’s failure to determine the application for Permission in Principle (PiP), within the relevant statutory timeframe. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that a PiP application is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. This route has 2 stages: the first (‘PiP’ stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second stage (technical details consent (TDC)) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the PiP stage, and I have had regard to the Council’s statement which provides clarity in terms of the reasons it would have refused permission for the development, had it been able to do so.

With no evidence to indicate otherwise, the address of the appeal site in the banner heading above is taken from the site address details section of the application form rather than as described on the appeal form. I am satisfied that this enables identification of the appeal site.

The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) provides that PiP may not be granted for major development. Whilst major development is defined in the Development Management Procedure Order (2015) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the PiP Order has its own definition. For the purposes of that Order, major development includes development comprising 10 or more dwellings, or development carried out on a site having an area of 1ha or more. The PiP regime is self-contained. Therefore, its definition provides the operative statutory test for this proposal.

The proposal seeks permission for the development of between one and 9 dwellings on a site area of 0.5ha, such that I am satisfied it would not constitute major development as defined by the PiP Order. However, the Council has raised procedural concerns that the proposal would amount to piecemeal development, arising from the subdivision of a larger site.

The appeal site relates to part of a horticultural unit comprising glasshouses, outdoor plant storage and associated hardstanding for car parking and manoeuvring. The red line does not follow any physical demarcation on the ground, and it excludes physically adjoining land which forms part of the wider horticultural planning unit. Nonetheless, it is possible for applications to relate to a smaller parcel within a wider holding.

I am aware that a subsequent PiP application was made and an appeal lodged against the Council’s non-determination for a separate development of housing on a separate but adjoining parcel of land within the same planning unit to the south-east1. I have been referred to case law which concludes that where proposals are part of a wider, obvious or foreseeable scheme, they can be treated as a single development for the purposes of policy thresholds 2.

The appellant’s explanation that the secondary scheme was only submitted because the Council had failed to reach a decision on this proposal is unconvincing. Nonetheless, the associated appeal has been withdrawn and thus, that proposal will not come forward. I am satisfied that I can consider the proposal before me on the basis of a single development. It would be for the Council to consider any technical implications of permitting residential development next to a horticultural use at the TDC stage were this appeal to be successful. Likewise, any future applications for development of the remainder of the planning unit would have to demonstrate that it has not been disaggregated from the appeal site to avoid policy requirements.

At the final comments stage of the appeal, the appellant advised that the area of the appeal site amounts to 0.39ha rather than the 0.5ha indicated on the planning application and appeal forms. I have been provided with a map extract said to be from the Council’s website showing the reduced site area calculation. However, it does not contain a scale or measurements, nor does it reflect the detail of the OS location plan in terms of buildings and boundaries present. I cannot therefore be satisfied that the new calculation is a true reflection of the site area, as shown on the submitted site location plan. Neither can I be sure that interested parties would not be prejudiced by a revised site area. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the proposal on the basis of the original information provided by the appellant, that being a site area of 0.5ha.

The appeal should be determined on the basis of the proposal put to the Council and so, given the specific wording of the description of development, I cannot at the appeal stage agree to an increased minimum number of dwellings, as this would be prejudicial to interested parties. Even so, the appellant has not confirmed what minimum number of dwellings I should consider instead. 1 Planning application reference 25/01164/PiP and appeal reference 6004432. 2 New Dawn Homes Ltd v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 3314 (Admin).

The Central Lancashire Local Plan 2023–2041 (CLLP) being prepared by Preston City Council and Chorley and South Ribble Borough Council’s, is at an advanced stage of preparation and is therefore a material consideration. However, the weight to be afforded to its policies must be assessed having regard to paragraph 49 of the Framework. In this respect, the examination of the plan is ongoing, and the appointed Inspectors have identified that further significant work is required in order to address concerns relating to the soundness of the plan, including matters relating to housing requirement and supply, specifically for Chorley Borough Council3. The examining Inspectors are clear that the additional works to address the plan’s deficiencies is expected to be substantial and would introduce new evidence, which is likely to result in the need for further Hearing sessions.

While the 3 Councils have agreed that they will prepare the additional evidence to give assurance that the emerging plan is sound and able to progress to adoption, I do not have this evidence before me, nor any indication that the examining Inspectors have accepted it.

In light of this and having regard to the Framework’s advice that the extent of unresolved objections is a key factor in determining weight, I am not satisfied that any more than limited weight can be attributed to the relevant policies of the emerging plan at this stage. The degree of weight afforded to Policy HS6 relating to density is inevitably constrained by the broader and more fundamental uncertainties relating to housing provision identified by the examining Inspectors. The policies of the emerging CLLP therefore attract limited weight.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having reference to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with regard to; • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and development plan policies; • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; • Whether the proposal amounts to an efficient use of land; and • If the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

Together, the [name] (CS) 2012 and the Chorley Local Plan (CLP) 2015, set the spatial vision for new development including identifying a hierarchy of settlements where growth and investment is to be directed. The appeal site is located in the Green Belt, outside of any defined settlement. In such locations, development is expected to be small-scale and limited to appropriate infilling, the conversion of buildings and proposals to meet 3 Examination of the Central Lancashire Local Plan 2023-2041 [name] – [name] and Related Matters Letter dated 4 March 2026 as contained at [name] of the appellant’s Rebuttal of the Council’s Appeal Statement. local need unless there are exceptional reasons for large-scale redevelopment schemes.

Policy BNE5 of the CLP permits the reuse, infilling or redevelopment of previously developed sites in the Green Belt subject to criteria. The appeal site contains buildings, structures and hardstanding. The appellant is clear that it is in horticultural use and this chimes with my observations. This falls within the definition of agriculture set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which the Framework states is excluded from the definition of previously developed land.

The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it meets one of the identified exceptions set out at paragraph 154 of the Framework, or if the circumstances in paragraph 155 apply. Neither party contends that the proposal falls within one of the paragraph 154 exceptions.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate, where specific criteria are met. These include that (a) 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; (b) there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; (c) the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. The proposal must meet all of the criteria to not constitute inappropriate development. Criterion (d) relating to the ‘[name] would not be applicable as the proposal is not major development.

The parties dispute whether the appeal site can be considered to be a sustainable location. Paragraph 110 of the Framework acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, which should be taken into account. Paragraph 115 seeks to ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location. It also aims to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. In this regard, the Framework prioritises access to shops, facilities and services on foot and by cycling, followed by public transport.

The adopted strategy of the CS seeks to locate development where it can reduce the need to travel, maximises access to services and supports a more sustainable pattern of growth. It does this by identifying settlements and directing development towards them whilst simultaneously limiting development in the countryside. In this regard Policy 1 of the CS is consistent with the Framework’s approach.

The appeal site is not located within one of the Council’s identified settlements and it was described by a previous Inspector as forming a section of ribbon development lying between larger settlements further afield, such that it did not amount to a village4. My observations concur with this view. There are a small number of facilities nearby including a restaurant, small farm shop and a pub further along the A581. However, they would not in themselves meet the everyday needs of the future occupiers of the proposed development. Moreover, although acknowledging the presence of some streetlighting, the pedestrian infrastructure along the A581 is substandard with narrow and/or discontinuous pavements 4 With reference to paragraph 9 of appeal decision APP/D2320/W/22/3305925. requiring regular crossing of a frequently trafficked road, to reach some of these facilities. Given these conditions and the speed of vehicles, it would not feel particularly pleasant or safe to walk even short distances along these routes, especially with young children or in the case of those with impaired mobility.

There may be some opportunities for cycling but due to the narrowness of the road and the frequency of traffic, it is unlikely to be pursued by anyone other than the most experienced and confident of road cyclists. A number of interested parties refer to [site address] being recognised as a road of safety concern with average speed cameras and road markings deployed to improve safety conditions which supports this view.

Hourly bus services operate to Leyland and Chorley which are key service centres. Preston and Wigan are also accessible via the bus with journey times of approximately 50 minutes, and a rail connection is available at Croston. A school bus also operates locally. However, it is unclear whether the general bus services operate 7 days per week, including into the evenings and weekends, such that it would provide a realistic choice for different journey requirements.

Nonetheless, future occupants would typically have to travel away from the appeal site to visit supermarkets, access employment areas and leisure/medical facilities to meet their everyday needs. An hourly bus service whilst beneficial, is not so frequent that travelling by car to these destinations, as well as nearby settlements such as Eccleston, would be easier, quicker and a more convenient choice for most journeys. For these reasons, I find that the location of the appeal site is such that future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be car dependant.

I recognise that my findings differ from those of the Inspector that allowed appeals at 14 Southport Road5 and Land at Lydiate Lane6. However, in those cases, the accessibility of the appeal site was not a matter in dispute between the parties and the Inspector had no reason to take a different view.

Likewise, the Council has permitted a number of PiP applications in the area where I am told it accepted the sites as being in sustainable locations for the purposes of national policy7. Consistency in decision-making is an important principle. However, each case must be determined on its own merits, having regard to its particular circumstances and the evidence before the decision-maker. The reasons for permitting these schemes are not fully before me.

While living in rural areas can result in a greater reliance on private vehicles, the CS and the Framework seek to focus development in locations which limit the need to travel, and [my emphasis] offer a genuine choice of transport modes, prioritising walking and cycling above other means. If the limited level of accessibility evident in this case were sufficient, it would follow that a wide range of locations in the open countryside, where occasional facilities or infrequent bus services are present, could be regarded as sustainable. This would run counter to the clear intention of both the development plan and the Framework, to concentrate development in the most sustainable locations. 5 6 7 With reference to paragraphs 3.7-3.10 of the appellant’s appeal statement and the Loxley development referred to in the appellant’s rebuttal document.

Having carefully considered the specific evidence before me in this instance and my own observations of the site and its surroundings, I am not persuaded that the appeal site would provide a genuinely sustainable location in terms of paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. The proposal would not materially limit the need to travel. Neither has it been demonstrated that there would be a genuine choice of public transport modes to a sufficient degree. The future occupants of the proposed dwellings would thus in my view, be car dependant.

The proposal would therefore conflict with criterion (c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework and would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. It would also fail to comply with Policy 1 of the CS.

Even if the development would meet a demonstrable unmet need for housing and that it would utilise grey belt land without fundamentally undermining the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area, it would not prevent the development from being considered inappropriate. This is because all of the paragraph 155 criteria are required to be met simultaneously.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework indicates that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt, with a key objective being to keep land permanently open. Openness has spatial and visual aspects and is a matter of planning judgement8.

In this case, the appeal site comprises a large single storey glasshouse and an area of hardstanding to the rear. The glasshouse is of a lightweight appearance with a low-profile multi-gable roof.

The specific size, scale and form of the proposed dwellings is a matter to be dealt with at the TDC stage. However, 2-storey houses would be taller than the present glasshouses and even bungalows may be higher than the low lying form of the existing structure. There may be a positive reduction in floor area coverage of built form but without detailed information regarding the scale of the development including the provisions of outbuildings and domestic gardens, it has not been conclusively demonstrated that the proposal would preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

Moreover, it is unclear where the development would be accessed from, given that the existing access to the horticultural business lies outside of the site edged red. A new access from [site address] would necessitate the removal of at least a section of the existing boundary hedge to the front. This is likely to open up views, such that any spatial impact on the Green Belt may also have an increased visual effect. Without any compelling evidence to the contrary, the proposal would conflict with paragraph 142 of the Framework.

The PiP regime allows a range of development to be expressed in the description of development. In this case, a sizeable range of between one and 9 dwellings is proposed. The PPG is clear that the ‘amount’ of development proposed is an intrinsic consideration at the PiP stage and therefore I am satisfied that it falls to be considered here. 8 As set out in the Planning Practice Guide Paragraph: 013 [name]: 64-[phone].

At the lower end of the scale, a single dwelling on this site would result in a density of 2 dwellings per hectare (dph) as cited by the Council. This would plainly represent an inefficient use of land. Given that a TDC application has to be in accordance with the PiP that has been granted, there is no clear evidence to demonstrate that a proposal for one dwelling on this site could be prevented, given that it forms part of the description of development.

The provision of 9 dwellings would result in a maximum density of 18dph on a site of 0.5ha. Even accepting that this is a rural area, that would not represent an efficient use of land when the CS identifies suburban and rural locations within the plan area are typically built at 25-35dph9. I am also advised that the scheme permitted for up to 5 dwellings at 14 [site address] opposite, would result in a density of 25dph. This indicates that a higher density has been considered appropriate for this context. The appellant has not presented any compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. The proposal, even if built at the maximum end of the proposed range, would therefore fail to accord with the density range expressed in the CS and would not make an efficient use of land.

The appellant relies on the Council not having raised density concerns for other housing developments in the area as justification for the range proposed. It is unclear from the evidence presented why the Council considered a density of 16.3dph acceptable on land north of [address]. Even so, such decisions do not justify perpetuating an inefficient use of land given the clear expectations of local and national planning policies.

Clearly there would be a balance to be struck between optimising an efficient use of land and preventing harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Nonetheless, the Framework is clear that boosting the supply of housing is not to be carried out at any cost. Paragraph 130 is unambiguous in stating that local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make an efficient use of land.

It was not necessary for the Inspector to consider density in the [address] and [address] appeals, as it was not a matter in dispute between the parties. This does not affect my findings.

For the reasons given, the proposal would not make an efficient use of land even if it was built at the maximum part of the specified range. It would therefore conflict with Policy 5 of the CS which seeks to secure densities of development which are in-keeping with local areas.

The proposal would result in inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and it has not been demonstrated that openness would be preserved. The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be allowed except in very special circumstances. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The Council advances its housing land supply position by reference in part to the emerging CLLP. However, for the reasons given above, I afford only limited weight 9 Paragraph 8.17 of the Council’s CS. to that plan. On that basis, I cannot place reliance on its housing requirement or supply evidence as a robust indicator of the current housing supply position. In addition, the [name] position indicates that delivery has been significantly below requirement. In the absence of clear and up-to-date evidence demonstrating a 5-year supply, I proceed on the basis that such a supply has not been robustly established, a position that the Council appears to accept.

The proposal would make an important contribution towards boosting the supply of housing in an area where there is a deficiency, resulting in social benefits. There would be economic advantages during construction, as well as from the ongoing patronage of services and facilities in the wider area from future occupiers.

The evidence before me indicates that due to the extent of the site area, affordable housing would be required to be delivered as part of this proposal. The appellant has not disputed this and infers acceptance by suggesting that this matter could be dealt with at the TDC stage. There is, therefore, no indication that the resultant scheme could or would not comply with the policy requirement. I am satisfied that the precise level, tenure and delivery mechanism for the affordable housing would fall to be considered at the TDC stage, potentially through a planning obligation. These benefits attract considerable positive weight in favour of the proposal.

Whilst any contribution is worthwhile, especially in a position of a housing supply deficit, the benefits of a small-scale proposal of this nature would be modest overall, tempered by the siting of the dwellings contrary to the Council’s strategy of locating development in accessible locations and failing to make an efficient use of land.

Even if there is a shortfall in 5-year supply of the scale suggested by the appellant, the other considerations carrying modest weight, do not, individually or cumulatively, outweigh the substantial weight I must give to the Green Belt harm. Therefore, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

Paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework directs that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies that are most important for determining an application are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless certain circumstances apply. One such circumstance is where the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance, such as the Green Belt, provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

I have found that the proposal would conflict with the Framework relating to the Green Belt. Under the provisions of Framework paragraph 11(d)(i), this provides a strong reason for refusing the development.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan. There are no considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to lead me to a decision other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. [planning inspector] - INSPECTOR