Appeal 6004551

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has referred to the draft National Planning Policy Framework (the draft NPPF). Given that the draft NPPF is currently being consulted on and it is not known what future changes might occur prior to publication, I afford the draft NPPF limited weight as a material consideration.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. Nevertheless, the Council concluded that the proposal would benefit from Paragraph 154(g) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which provides an exception for development in the Green Belt comprising the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land. The evidence before me and my own observations do not lead me to a different conclusion on this matter. Accordingly, the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location with regard to access to shops, services, and facilities.

The appeal site forms a collection of stables and outbuildings to the north of the property known as Hazeldene.

The site is not within any of the settlements identified in the settlement hierarchy set out in Policy SP1 of the [site address] Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document (2013) (the Local Plan). Policies RS1 and GN1 of the Local Plan broadly intended to direct development to the most sustainable locations, restricting development outside of settlement boundaries.

Whilst Policy RS1 of the Local Plan makes limited specific reference to developments within the Green Belt, Policy GN1 of the Local Plan states that proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed against national policy and any relevant Local Plan policies.

Paragraph 83 of the Framework promotes sustainable development in rural areas through the location of housing where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

The appeal site is within a rural location, approximately 1.[address] from services such as a farm shop and primary school, within the village of Lathom. Burscough and Ormskirk offer a range of services including railway stations with cycle parking, and are identified as [name] within the Local Plan. These settlements are approximately 1.5 kilometres and 3 kilometres from the appeal site by road, respectively. These notable distances make the journey by foot prohibitive.

Whilst the journey to Lathom, Burscough, and Ormskirk would be more achievable via bicycle, there is a dearth of street lighting, pavement, and cycle lanes along the sections of roads required to access the aforementioned settlements. This therefore diminishes the potential for safe and practical pedestrian or cycle movements.

A public footpath lies to the east of the appeal site, offering a shorter, approximate [address] to Burscough. Nonetheless, the path is unlit, and the majority lacks any formal paving, making this journey impractical during nighttime and inclement weather. The appellant’s submission refers to the closest bus stop being located approximately 800 metres away, accessed via the public footpath, representing restricted access to public transport.

As such, the site cannot reasonably be considered to occupy a sustainable location. The limited opportunities for walking, cycling, or public transport would deter future occupants from using alternative modes of travel and would inevitably result in a high degree of reliance on private car for day-to-day needs.

I recognise that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and that the context of [site address] , the appeal site is rated as B based on the appellant’s connectivity tool calculation. Nevertheless, the combined connectivity score across all modes of transport is reported as being “slightly below average”. Further, the appellant’s [name] (2025) demonstrates that the method for travelling to work in [site address] is overwhelmingly by car or van, further demonstrating future occupiers’ reliance on private car.

I acknowledge that the use of electric vehicles (EV) as a sustainable transport mode could reduce the proposal’s environmental effects. However, despite EV charging infrastructure, it remains necessary to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site by sustainable means can be achieved for all users, noting the Framework highlights that priority should be given first to pedestrian and cycle movements and second to access to high quality public transport.

The appellant contends that the proposal would allow them to live close to their parents’ home, reducing overall trips. Whilst the [name] would tie the appellant to the proposed dwelling for a minimum period of three years, there is nothing before me to ensure their parents would remain in their current home. Therefore, I can only afford this limited weight.

For these reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not be in a suitable location for housing with regard to access to shops, services, and facilities. It would therefore conflict with the Framework and Policies RS1 and GN1 of the Local Plan. When read together, these broadly intended to direct development to the most sustainable locations.

Whilst the appellant may own an EV and the proposal would incorporate two EV charging points, there is nothing before me to secure the use of EVs for future occupiers. Therefore, I can only afford this limited weight.

The proposal may comply with the Framework’s policy in relation to Green Belt development and there were no highways objections in relation to provision of safe access. Nonetheless, policy compliance and a lack of harm are neutral factors and weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

Approval 2013/1026/[address] Farm relates to a barn conversion and in the case of appeals APP/M3645/W/24/3343193 and APP/M3645/W/24/3343194, these benefited from a fallback position of a change of use from agricultural buildings to three dwellinghouses. The Inspector found that the application site of appeal APP/M3645/W/24/3347815 was close to a primary school, a village hall, and a bus service. For Appeal APP/M3645/W/24/3347328 the Inspector states that there are bus stops nearby and that a public house lies a short distance away. Appeal APP/P2365/W/24/3350235 was for the erection of 34 adaptable and accessible bungalows for over 55’s. As such, each of these are materially different to the appeal before me. Moreover, each proposal must be considered on its individual merits.

The Council has conceded that they do not have a 5 year housing land supply. The appellant contends that the Council can only demonstrate a 1.86 year supply of deliverable housing sites and the Council do not dispute this. This is a significant shortfall. As such, paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which is engaged.

Paragraph 11d)(ii) of the Framework requires the granting of planning permission where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would result in the addition of a single self-build dwelling to the existing housing stock. The development would represent a small site on previously developed land and be sustainably designed and constructed, incorporating EV charging points. There would be some economic benefits during the construction phase and through Council Tax. Future occupiers would utilise services within the borough. The proposal would also enhance biodiversity and ecology. Nevertheless, given the minor scale of the proposal, these combined benefits carry moderate weight.

The Framework seeks to ensure housing in rural areas is located to enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, promoting sustainable transport. Further, it also seeks to ensure development gives priority to pedestrian and cycle movements and access to public transport.

Policies GN1 and SP1 of the Local Plan remain broadly consistent with the Framework’s approach of directing development to sustainable locations. I thus apportion significant weight to the harm and development plan conflict arising from the inappropriateness of the location for an additional dwelling. The identified harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.