Appeal 6004439

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs is made by [name] and [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 Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) provides that a 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 proposals 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 5 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.

The Council has raised concerns that the site edged red is arbitrary and excludes an ‘L’ shaped strip of land between it and the external field boundaries. I will consider the implications of this for the character and appearance of the area later in my decision. However, the PPG is clear that a PiP proposal can relate to a smaller parcel of land within a holding. In this instance, taking into account the [name] judgment1, I see no reason to conclude that the proposal fails to identify the appropriate planning unit on which an application needs to be based.

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 to address concerns relating to the soundness of the plan, including matters relating to housing requirement and supply specifically for Chorley Borough Council2. 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 Council suggests that 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; • 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 1 New Dawn Homes Ltd v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 3314 (Admin). 2 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 appellants’ Rebuttal of the Council’s Appeal Statement. 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. It could not reasonably be described as infilling as there is no existing development to the north. 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 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. I observed it forms part of a rural lane with ribbon development on the opposite side. There are a small number of facilities nearby including a petrol filling station/shop and a pub. While they would be within a reasonable walking distance, the presence of agricultural fields between them and the appeal site results in the perception of a greater distance. They do not necessarily provide a range of services to meet the day-to-day needs of residents. The centre of Eccleston a Rural Local Service Centre to the south, whilst containing a variety of local facilities, would also be more than a reasonable walkable distance for most residents.

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 [address] being well trafficked and there being a record of accidents nearby which supports this view.

Buses operate to Eccleston and less frequently to Leyland and Chorley with Preston and Wigan further afield. These services would provide a degree of choice for travel other than via the private car. However, it is unclear from the evidence presented whether the services operate 7 days per week, including into the evenings and weekends, such that it would provide a realistic choice for different journey requirements, including commuting or accessing leisure facilities.

It seems to me that future occupants of the proposed dwellings 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.

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. While the delegated report refers to bus services, it makes no mention of facilities being accessible on foot, a clear requirement of the Framework. The Council also took a different view to the acceptability of the location of a site at [address]. However, this was considered as acceptable infill development. The Council explains that its approach has developed as experience of PiP applications and Green Belt considerations, including grey belt land has evolved. 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.

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 appeal3.

The proposal would therefore conflict with criterion (c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework and would constitute inappropriate development. 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 judgement4.

The appeal site comprises 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] and [address], albeit in this latter case at a medium distance.

The urbanisation and visual encroachment of built development would therefore be 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.

As an agricultural field devoid of built development, the appeal site has a strong visual association with the surrounding countryside. It therefore contributes positively to the spacious, verdant rural character and appearance of the area.

The development of the appeal site for housing would perpetuate and consolidate linear ribbon development along a distributor road. As discussed in the openness section above, the erection of [address] and associated paraphernalia, would inevitably result in the urbanisation of the appeal site. 3 Appeal Decision 6002973 with specific reference to paragraphs 18-20. 4 As set out in the Planning Practice Guide Paragraph: 013 [name]: 64-[phone].

No matter how the development would come forward at the TDC stage, the appeal site being set back would leave an odd ‘L’ shaped parcel of agricultural land between the proposed houses and 2 of the field boundaries. The resultant small strip of land would appear as land left over after planning, failing to reflect the wider, spacious proportions of fields nearby.

The PiP regime allows a range of development to be expressed in the description of development. In this case, a range of between one and 5 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. A development at the upper end of the range would result in a maximum density of 10 dwellings per hectare (dph). 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 25-35dph5. Clearly a development at the lower end of the range would be considerably worse.

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 one dwelling on this site could be prevented, given that it forms part of the description of development.

The Council refers me to development on the opposite side of [address] where 8 dwellings are said to be accommodated within an area of about 0.26m, resulting in a density of circa 30dph. A recently permitted PiP for 2 houses at [address] is said to achieve a density of 40dph. Both of these examples demonstrate that, notwithstanding the location of the development in the Green Belt a significantly higher density than 10dph would be necessary to achieve a development that would be in-keeping with existing built form nearby.

The appellants rely 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. 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 appellants have not advanced any compelling evidence to demonstrate that a lower density would be consistent with the local context, I find that the proposal would fail to make an efficient use of land and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy 5 of the CS which seeks to secure densities of development that 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 amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt that would further result in a loss of openness. The Framework indicates that inappropriate 5 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 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 no indication that the resultant scheme could or would not, comply with this 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. 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.

Even if there is a shortfall in 5-year supply on 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.