Appeal 6004698

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for residential development of up to seven affordable dwellings is refused.

An application for costs was made by [name] of Heaton Estates Limited against Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate

Outline planning permission is sought with all matters reserved for later approval except for the means of access. The submitted application includes an indicative layout plan showing how the dwellings could be arranged on the site, and I have had due regard to this illustrative plan in the consideration of this proposal.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. The Council has provided a statement explaining the reasons why it would have refused planning permission should it have made a decision on the development.

From the evidence before me, the main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and • if the development is inappropriate, whether any 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 necessary to justify the development.

The appeal proposal seeks outline planning consent for up to seven affordable dwellings on land located within the Green Belt.

Policy JP-G9 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) (PfE), seeks to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt without harm to its openness, permanence or ability to serve its five purposes. This policy conforms with the provisions of the Framework.

The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, with the essential characteristics of the Green Belt being their openness and permanence. The Framework goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The Framework establishes that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions set out in paragraphs 154 and 155.

One such exception, criterion 154 (f), is for limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the development plan (including policies for rural exception sites).

Within their Appeal Statement the Council has stated that there are no relevant policies on limited affordable housing for local community needs, or policies for rural exception sites, within the adopted development plan. This has not been contested by the appellant and my attention has not been drawn to any relevant development plan policies on limited affordable housing for local community needs, or rural exception sites.

As such, and in the absence of any such policies before me, I find that the exception at 154 (f) is not applicable in this case.

Turning to paragraph 155 of the Framework, the development of homes in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate if all the stated criteria (a – d) apply.

The first consideration is whether the development would utilise Grey Belt land. Grey Belt is defined in the Framework as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143. Additional guidance is provided in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

There is no dispute between the parties that the appeal site does not perform strongly against these criteria and thus there is agreement that the site should be considered Grey Belt. On the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree.

Turning to the criteria (a – d) within paragraph 155, the appeal proposal does not meet the definition of major development contained within the Framework and therefore the ‘[name] requirements set out in paragraphs 156 – 157 of the Framework do not apply. As such, criterion (d) is not applicable to the appeal proposal.

With regard to criterion (a), the location of the site would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. The development therefore meets the requirement of criterion (a).

There is also agreement between the parties that the appeal site is sustainably located with regard to criterion (c) and based on the evidence before me, as well as my own observations on site, I see no reason to disagree.

With regard to criterion (b) however, while the appellant has sought to demonstrate an unmet need for affordable housing in the borough, the relevant test under paragraph 155 (b) for applications involving the provision of housing is whether there is a lack of a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, including the appropriate buffer where applicable, or whether the [name] result was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years.

Within their [name] submission, the appellant accepts that the Council has an overall supply of open market housing that exceeds the five-year requirement, with the Council stating they can demonstrate a 6.09-year supply of deliverable housing. Furthermore, there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the Council’s Housing Delivery Test was below the 75% of housing requirement over the previous three years. Therefore, the criteria set out in paragraph 155 (b) is not met.

I conclude that the proposed development does not meet any of the exceptions listed in paragraph 154 of the Framework. It does also not meet all the required criteria within paragraph 155 of the Framework, specifically criterion (b). The development therefore represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the Framework, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The PPG advises that openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects.

Whilst issues relating to scale, appearance, layout, and landscaping are all reserved matters, openness is a fundamental characteristic of the Green Belt and therefore the effect of the appeal proposal on the openness of the Green Belt must also be considered at outline stage.

In this regard, the appeal relates to a parcel of green open space that is adjoined by the built-up area of Leigh to the south, east and west. However, the northern boundary of the site is open and beyond is a large area of green open space, known as Bickershaw Country Park.

I observed that the undeveloped appeal site currently consists of a mix of overgrown grass and self-seeded trees, with large areas of shrubbery. A trodden pathway runs through the site, leading from the pedestrian gated access point off [address] to the vast open space to the north. The appeal site therefore provides an access route from the built-up area to the south, into the open park land to the north.

Due to the surrounding houses to the south, east and west, views of the appeal site are somewhat restricted from the built-up area of Leigh. However, the existing trees within the appeal site, as well as some areas of shrubbery, are visible above and through gaps between the surrounding houses, and from viewpoints close to pedestrian access point off [address]. Additionally, the openness of the appeal site is appreciated when viewed from the adjacent houses, as well as from within the appeal site itself when walking to and from the open land to the north. I therefore found that in its present not built upon state, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the openness of the Green Belt.

The erection of up to 7no. dwellings, along with the associated works, including any extension of the access road, as well as associated paraphernalia such as cars, driveways, boundary treatments etc... would result in built development that would occupy a space that is currently not built upon. The appeal proposal would inevitably therefore reduce the spatial openness of the appeal site within the Green Belt. Furthermore, the appeal proposal would not safeguard the countryside from encroachment, and thus conflicts with one of the five purposes of the Green Belt.

In visual terms, the proposed dwellings, along with the aforementioned associated works and paraphernalia, would also be visible from some public vantage points along the highway of [address], and from surrounding residential properties. They would also be visible from some short-distance views within the open land to the north. As such the appeal proposal would also have a greater visual impact on openness than the existing undeveloped site.

In view of the above, the development of up to 7no. dwellings, and associated works and paraphernalia, into an area of land that is currently vacant and devoid of any built development, would have a harmful impact on the openness of the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms. The proposal would also conflict with the purpose of the Green Belt which seeks to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. This identified harm would be in addition to the inappropriateness of the scheme.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would cause significant harm to the visual and spatial openness of the Green Belt, as well as the purpose of the Green Belt which seeks to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. I consequently find conflict with PfE Policy JP-G9 and the Framework, in so far as these policies set out that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt and one of the purposes is to safeguard the countryside from encroachment.

The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes and at paragraph 73 it states that small and medium sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are essential for [name] housebuilders to deliver new homes, and are often built-out relatively quickly.

As mentioned, the appeal proposal seeks outline consent for up to 7no. affordable houses, and I consider the site to be small to medium sized.

In regard to affordable housing needs, Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy (2013) Policy CP6, at sub paragraph 9.38, indicates a need for over 4,000 affordable units over a 15- year period. Furthermore, and as part of the appeal submissions, I have been provided with copies of the Wigan Borough Local Housing Needs Assessment 2024 (October

(LHNA) and the Wigan Authority Monitoring Report 2024/25 (February 2026) (AMR).

The LHNA identifies a need for 283 net additional affordable homes per annum across the borough, which is lower than the figure of 338 per annum in the 2020 LHNA. [name] C9 the LHNA also identifies an annual need for 114 affordable homes for the sub-area of Leigh, within which the appeal site is located.

Figure 3.2 of the AMR shows that affordable housing delivery in the borough fell short of the annual targets throughout the period of 2011-17 and the Council claim this was primarily a result of the national economic downturn resulting in lower housing delivery rates. [name] however also shows that since 2017, affordable housing delivery has picked up, with the annual target being exceeded each year between 2017 – 2025, with the exception of 2021/22 when delivery fell just short of the target.

Nevertheless, the AMR details that 3,835 affordable homes have been delivered since April 2011, and this equates to an average of 274 affordable homes per year. Therefore, the evidence before me details that overall there has been a slight under provision of affordable homes against the identified need since April 2011.

[name] acknowledge the Council’s point that delivery of affordable homes is showing an upward trajectory in recent years, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that this would continue to be the case. Furthermore, the appellant has drawn my attention to Table C7 of the LHNA which states that assuming all are built out over five years, there is a total pipeline of 949 affordable dwellings identified by the Council in June 2024. This equates to approx. 190 units per year and the projected pipeline is therefore below the target of delivering 283 affordable homes per annum.

As such, and based on the evidence before me, I find that the Council has not met its overall affordable housing target since 2011 and the projected pipeline for the next five years would also be below the annual target. Furthermore, I acknowledge that there is a need for affordable housing in Leigh, and whilst the proposal is in outline form, the appellant has stated a willingness to provide the type and size of houses identified in the LHNA for this area.

In view of all the above, I therefore attribute the provision of up to 7no. affordable dwellings, on a small to medium sized site and in a sustainable location, significant weight in favour of the appeal proposal.

Economic benefits would arise from the proposal, including contributions to the local economy during the construction phase of the development. These however would be short term benefits. Further economic benefits would also arise from additional spending in the wider area, by future occupants of the dwellings. Cumulatively, given the scale of development the economic support to the area arising from the appeal proposal would be relatively small. I therefore attach limited weight in respect of the economic benefits.

The proposed development would be accessed via the highway of Bramblemead, which serves the adjacent recently built houses to the west. However, my attention has been drawn to this highway not being completed or adopted, with reference made to this neighbouring developer going into liquidation.

Within their submission the appellant has stated that they would be willing to lay a top surface over this road. [name] acknowledge this would be of benefit to existing users of this road, I have limited substantive evidence before me in respect of the current status of this neighbouring developer, their future intentions for this road or any potential action being taken to ensure it is completed. As such, I cannot be certain that this road would not be completed regardless of the outcome of this appeal. This therefore limits the weight I can attribute to this matter in favour of the appeal proposal.

The proposal has the potential to increase biodiversity on the appeal site and also provide additional landscaping at reserved matters stage. [name] do not have all the information before me at this stage as to exactly what the biodiversity enhancement measures would entail, and / or the amount that would be provided, I acknowledge that there would be an opportunity to increase the overall biodiversity value of the site and provide additional landscaping. However, in the absence of the precise details and given the scale of the development site, I attribute these matters limited weight in favour of the appeal at outline stage.

The appeal proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and results in significant harm to openness and the purpose of the Green Belt which seeks to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. By virtue of paragraph 153 of the Framework this harm attracts substantial weight.

The Framework makes it clear that the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the development, must be clearly outweighed by other considerations for planning permission to be granted. In this case, I find that there are other considerations which weigh in favour of the appeal proposal, including the provision of affordable housing in a sustainable location on a small to medium sized site, to which I have attributed significant weight. However, I find that the weight of all these other considerations does not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt identified above.

Consequently, the very special circumstances that are necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist in this case.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.