Appeal 6004436

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.

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 National Planning Policy Framework (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 Council1. The examining Inspectors are clear that the additional works to address the plan’s deficiencies is expected to be 1 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. 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.

At the final comments stage of the appeal, the appellant advised that the area of the appeal site amounts to 0.19ha rather than the 0.3ha 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 certain that the new calculation is a true reflection of the exact 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. In the interests of fairness and integrity, I have determined the proposal on the basis of the original information provided by the appellant, that being a site area of 0.3ha.

The Council has expressed concerns that the site edged red has been artificially subdivided excluding the frontage of the site. [name] will consider the effect on this on the character and appearance of the area later in my decision, the PPG is clear that a PiP proposal can relate to a smaller parcel of land within a holding. I see no reason to conclude that the proposal fails to identify the appropriate planning unit on which an application needs to be based. There is nothing before me to indicate that affordable housing would be a requirement in this instance.

The main issue is whether the appeal 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; • The effect on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the density of development; 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 local need unless there are exceptional reasons for large-scale redevelopment schemes. From the evidence before me, the proposal would not meet any of these categories of development. As neither party identifies the appeal site as previously developed land, Policy BNE5 of the CLP which permits the reuse, infilling or redevelopment of such sites, is not engaged.

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. The proposal would comprise housing development on undeveloped land. Neither party contends that the proposal would meet any of the paragraph 154 exceptions, and I have seen no substantive evidence to indicate I should take a different view.

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 in 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.

The adopted strategy of the CS seeks to locate development where it can reduce the need to travel, maximise access to services and support 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.

Heskin is not identified as a settlement in the development plan due to its lack of facilities. Whilst facilities are present in the wider area, they are in dispersed locations. A hair salon is located on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site, and the [name] is located within a short walking distance, which may be patronised by the future occupants of the proposed dwellings. A convenience store exists further to the south, along with a nursery and primary school. However, this part of Heskin is physically and visually detached from the appeal site, such that these services are perceived to be further away and separated. The same can be said for the Heskin Hall Shopping Village, which is served by a long, predominantly single track lane off the main road. Likewise, Eccleston although classified as a Rural Local Service Centre in the CS, is located circa 1 mile from the appeal site with intervening swathes of agricultural land that emphasises the separation between the two.

[address] is winding in parts, with the pavements being narrow and overgrown in places, with street lighting sometimes limited to one side of the road. Although a snapshot in time, I observed the B classified road to be well-trafficked and vehicles were perceived to be often travelling in excess of the speed limit. These observations are corroborated by the representations of interested parties. It would not feel particularly safe or convenient to walk these routes to the available services and facilities, particularly for parents with children or those with mobility restrictions.

Cycling into Eccleston may be a possibility for some journey’s but given the narrowness of [address], the frequency of traffic and the lack of a dedicated cycle lane, it is unlikely to be pursued by anyone other than the most experienced and confident of road cyclists.

Most facilities that future residents would require to meet their day-to-day needs would thus, be located beyond a comfortable walking and cycling distance. There are bus stops a short distance from the appeal site on [address] which I am advised provide an hourly service to Eccleston, and Chorley and Leyland beyond averaging 25-30 minute journeys. Services to places further afield such as Standish, Wigan and Preston are also available. It is however, unclear that such services operate 7 days a week, including on evenings and weekends, to provide a realistic choice for different journey requirements such as commuting or accessing leisure facilities. An hourly service whilst beneficial, is not so frequent that travelling by car to these destinations would be an easier, quicker and more convenient choice for most journeys.

It is unclear why the Council found the Loxley development to be situated in a sustainable location when by PWA Planning’s own admission, that site did not have footpaths to Eccleston or facilities and relies on a limited bus service. Whilst the delegated report refers to bus services, it makes no mention of facilities being accessible on foot, a clear requirement of the Framework. Even so, I am mindful that each case must be determined on its own merits, having regard to its particular circumstances and the evidence before the decision-maker at the time.

I am mindful that 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.

Having carefully considered the specific evidence before me 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 be car dependant. In this regard my findings reflect those of the Inspector in The Elephant appeal2.

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

Even if I could consider the development to 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 judgement3.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of an undeveloped agricultural field. Although recognising that matters of layout and scale would be determined at the TDC stage, the erection of up to [address], car parking and accesses on a site that is currently free from built development would inevitably result in a spatial loss of openness. The mass and scale of the development would be visible in localised public views from [address].

The urbanisation and visual encroachment of built development would therefore be readily apparent. Whilst the reduction in openness to the Green Belt as a whole, would be modest and localised, permanent harm to the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt would nonetheless occur. Consequently, I find conflict with paragraph 142 of the Framework.

The proposed development would introduce residential built form into what is presently an open parcel of land that contributes positively to the spacious and intermittent pattern of development along [address]. The character of the area is defined in part by this spacing, with gaps between dwellings formed by pockets of agricultural land, contributing to its rural appearance.

The appeal site is positioned behind a relatively deep frontage of hedgerow shrubs and trees, that would remain outside the red line boundary. Such a deeply recessed position would not maintain the established pattern of road frontage. Neither would it enable any control or certainty over what would happen to the existing soft landscaping to the front. 2 Appeal Decision 6002973 with specific reference to paragraphs 18-20. 3 As set out in the Planning Practice Guide Paragraph: 013 [name]: 64-[phone].

In addition, whilst acknowledging that PiP applications can have a development range, in this case there would be a considerable difference between a development of one dwelling versus 5, which the permission would allow. Even if developed at the maximum end of the range, the development would only achieve a density of 16.6 dwellings per hectare (dph), based on the site area as originally submitted by the appellant.

The Council provides a density comparison with a recent development on the southern side of [address] at 50dph. However, development on the northern side of [address] is looser, arising from detached properties occupying larger plots. This indicates that a density of 50dph may not necessarily be appropriate for the appeal site. Nonetheless, the CS identifies that suburban and rural locations within the plan area are typically built at 25-35dph4. Even accepting that this is a rural area, the proposed maximum density would be significantly below this guide. Clearly a development at the lower end of the range would be considerably worse. Whilst layout and detailed design are matters to be resolved at the TDC stage, I am not satisfied that the proposal could achieve an efficient use of land that would simultaneously fit in with the prevailing pattern of development in this locality.

The appellant relies on the Council not having raised density concerns for other housing developments in the area as justification for the range proposed. The officer reports for the [address] and [address] schemes only appear to consider the upper end of the scale and do not explain why the resultant low densities were considered to be acceptable. As density was not a matter in dispute for the associated appeals, it would not have been necessary for the Inspector to consider it. I am also referred to a development on the corner of [address] and Park Hall Road that the Council approved with a density of 7.4dph. I have not been provided with the full details of that decision, including the officer report such that the reasons for that decision are unknown. Even so, such decisions do not justify perpetuating an inefficient use of land given the clear expectations of local and national planning policies.

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. As the appellant has not advanced any compelling evidence to demonstrate that the proposed density range would be consistent with the local context, I find that the proposed development would fail to make an efficient use of land.

The relationship of development set behind the frontage, combined with the limited level of development proposed, would appear at odds with the prevailing form and pattern of development. The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the area. Conflict is found with Policy 5 of the CS which seeks to secure densities of development which are in-keeping with local areas and Policy BNE1 of the CLP, which seeks to ensure proposals do not have a significantly detrimental impact on the surrounding area.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, further resulting in a loss of openness. The Framework indicates that inappropriate 4 Paragraph 8.17 of the Council’s CS. 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 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 land 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 where there is an identified deficiency, resulting in social benefits. There would be economic benefits during construction, as well as from the ongoing patronage of services and facilities in the wider area from future occupiers. The benefits of providing between one and 5 dwellings would, however, be modest. Their siting contrary to Policies 1 and 5 of the CS for development to be in an accessible location would temper the weight to be afforded to such benefits. Development even at the higher end of the range would lead to sub-optimal density and harm to the character and appearance of the area.

[name] acknowledge the benefits linked to the proposal, they carry no more than moderate weight overall. Even if there is a shortfall in 5-year supply on the scale suggested by the appellant, the other considerations do not, individually or cumulatively, outweigh the substantial weight I must give to the Green Belt harm. 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. The proposal does not amount to sustainable 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.