Appeal 6004568

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook and light.

The appeal site lies to the rear of 23 and [address] and comprises a parking area, garaging and a grassed area. It is in a corner plot location in a residential area.

No 25 is a bungalow with a large window and patio doors facing into its rear amenity area. An approximately 1.8 metre high wall, divides the space from the appeal site. I am told that the aforementioned windows and doors serve a kitchen. The front and side windows within no 25 serve a lounge.

During my site visit, I observed that the front room is divided from the rear room by a solid wall. The link between the rooms is via an opening with partially glazed, partition doors. Accordingly, whilst there would be through-light and the layout is to some extent open plan, the kitchen is principally served by its own rear windows and doors.

The rear amenity area is sufficiently large for sitting out, hanging washing, and for the sheds to be sited away from the main outlook of the windows. Whilst direct views of the appeal site are restricted by the wall, there is outlook towards the space above the site and the sky. Taking these factors together, the area does not appear to have an oppressively enclosed character.

The proposed bungalow, would span the entire rear boundary of no [address] to the boundary wall. The roof slope and ridge, whilst angled away from the boundary, would still be in close proximity to no 25, and highly visible from it, due to its height and mass. As such, even though there is a small land level difference, the development would dominate the outlook from the kitchen windows and patio doors, as well as the rear amenity area. This would result in a harmfully overbearing effect, in contrast with the current outlook enjoyed by the occupants of no 25.

As the windows and amenity area of no 25 face west, it is reasonable to assume they receive afternoon and evening sunlight. The position and height of the proposed bungalow would diminish the extent of late evening sunlight reaching no 25, resulting in overshadowing. Whilst this would be for limited periods, taken together with the harmful overbearing effect, the development would unduly harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupier.

Accordingly, I conclude that the development would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to outlook and light. As such the proposal would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy BNE1 of the Chorley Local Plan1. Amongst other things, the policy permits new development where it would not cause harm to any neighbouring property by virtue of overshadowing, or an overbearing effect.

The mandatory [name] regime (BNG), requires development to provide a minimum of 10% BNG, unless it meets an exception set out in the Act2. It is common ground that the development would be required to provide the statutory BNG. Therefore, if the appeal were to succeed, it would be subject to the statutory pre-commencement biodiversity gain condition (‘the condition’). The Council’s stance is that evidence has not been submitted to demonstrate that the BNG requirements have been met.

The Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment, dated October 2025, concludes that in order to achieve a 10% uplift in [name], habitat units would need to be purchased as the uplift cannot be provided on-site. Guidance contained within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that it would generally be inappropriate, when determining a planning application for a development subject to BNG, to be refused on the grounds that BNG will not be met. The PPG also advises that consideration may be required as to whether ‘the condition’ is capable of being successfully discharged.

Whilst full details of the proposed purchase of units is not before me, I am satisfied that the appellant has provided sufficient minimum information in this regard. ‘The condition’ sets out that development cannot begin until the Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) has been approved. It would be for the Council to consider the BGP, and whether the measures set out at that time are acceptable and secured. I therefore find that the development is capable of meeting the mandatory requirements for BNG.

The Council asserts that it can demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing, with a 20% buffer (5YRHLS). However, they also accept that this has not yet been agreed, as demonstrated by the Planning Inspectorate letter dated 4th March 1 Chorley Local Plan 2012-2026, Site Allocations and Development Management Policies, Development Plan Document, adopted 21 July 2015. 2 Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

In the absence of additional evidence, I am satisfied that at present the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5YRHLS, and that paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged.

In accordance with paragraph 11 d) ii, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies.

Weighing in its favour, the proposal would, by way of one dwelling, modestly assist with the boost of housing supply, in an existing, sustainable settlement, making efficient use of land. It would also contribute to the local economy such as through construction jobs, and future occupants would support local businesses and services including for future maintenance of the dwelling. It would also be capable of providing a 10% net gain in biodiversity.

However, all the benefits combined, for a single dwelling are relatively modest. They are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupier, having particular regard to the need to achieve well-designed places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Thus, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For the reasons I have set out above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.