Appeal 6004784

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Chorley Council. That application is subject to a separate decision.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle and the second (technical details consent) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters would be considered as part of a subsequent [name] (TDC) application if permission in principle is granted.

The Central Lancashire Authorities comprising Preston City Council, South Ribble Borough Council and Chorley Council are preparing a new development plan, the Central Lancashire Local Plan 2023 – 2041. This is at an advanced stage and has been through a Public Examination. That resulted in concerns about its soundness but with regard to housing land supply, it was agreed that the three authorities will work together for a joint approach in order to ensure the appropriate housing provisions. Chorley Council are confident that it will be able to demonstrate a five year supply once additional evidence has been prepared and submitted. However, 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]. at this stage, the weight I can afford the emerging plan with particular reference to housing land supply is limited.

The Council failed to determine the application within the prescribed time but has stated that it would have refused permission. I have incorporated its reasoning into my main issues below.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development with regard to: - • whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • whether the amount of development proposed would make efficient use of land; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

[address] is a narrow lane off [address] (A581), it is narrow and unmade apart from an initial section at the junction with [address]. The appeal site comprises a small clearing to the west of the track, opposite a gated dwelling, [address] and a collection of buildings. At the time of my site visit there was a metal storage container and a skip on the site. The track continues southwards. I note that there is a Tree Preservation Order2 covering the appeal site and the long strip of land comprising land either side of [address] but no information has been submitted regarding any authorised or unauthorised tree felling.

The Framework explains that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. This is reflected in paragraph 10.13 of the Core Strategy3. The Framework makes it clear that development is considered inappropriate unless it satisfies one of the exceptions cited in paragraphs 154 or 155.

The proposed dwelling would not fall into any of the exceptions cited in paragraph

This is not disputed by the parties. Paragraph 155 sets out additional criteria for the development of homes in the Green Belt. All of which must apply for the proposal to be considered inappropriate.

Criterion (a) requires the development to utilise grey belt land. The Framework defines grey belt as previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143. Green Belts serve five purposes, (a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built- 2 The Chorley Borough Council Tree Preservation Order No 1 (Eccleston) 2018. 3 [name] Local Development Framework July 2012 ([name]). up areas; (b) to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; (c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; (d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and (e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The site has not been defined as being previously developed land although Local Plan4 Policy BNE5 is referred to. This relates to previously developed land and therefore is not applicable. In considering ‘other land’, neither party disputes conflict with criteria (a), (b) or (d) referred to above; I have no reason to come to any other conclusion. Furthermore, the proposal would not fall within an area listed in footnote 7 of the Framework. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appeal site would meet the definition of grey belt.

Criterion (a) further requires that the development of grey belt land would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. The application form described the appeal site as being used for storage and there is evidence on site of some sort of ad hoc storage. The land does not appear however to serve any logical function in relation to the house at [address] or the buildings opposite which are set back from the track behind gates.

The Council refer to a long list of proposals for development in the Green Belt. These represent 26 sites and 254 dwellings. The Council are concerned that should these be approved, cumulatively they would erode the countryside in conflict with Green Belt purpose (c). Not all of these would necessarily be approved; the list includes 9 dwellings at The Elephant which I have previously dismissed5. Nevertheless, each appeal must be determined on its own merits, and in this case, given the location of this site, adjacent to the track and in the context of [address] and the group of buildings, I do not consider that it would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the Green Belt, taken together.

Criterion (b) requires there to be a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. The Council acknowledge that it currently cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land as required by the Framework. As referred to above, the [name] are preparing a new development plan. My understanding is that with regard to housing land supply, the three authorities are preparing additional evidence but as I have stated, at this stage, I cannot afford more than limited weight to the emerging plan. In this regard therefore, the requirements of criterion (b) would be met.

Criterion (c) requires the development to be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. Paragraph 110 seeks to focus development in locations that are or which can be made sustainable through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. Paragraph 115 sets out criteria for sustainable transport modes; safe and accessible access; the design of streets; and any impact on the transport network.

The appellant refers to a proposal for four dwellings following the demolition of existing buildings on land to the north-east of the appeal site6 and also for a PIP application for up to four dwellings on land to the east of the appeal site. The former 4 Chorley Council – Chorley Local Plan 2012 – 2026 Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document, Adopted 21 July 2015. 5 Appeal Ref: 6002973. 6 [name]: 24/00844/FUL and [name]: 25/01109/PIP. relates to the group of buildings I have referred to above. The second is land to the east of the house at [address]. Both would involve using the access along [address]. The appellant quotes the Council’s Officer Report as stating that the site is in a sustainable location with [address] being a Public Right of Way with access to bus stops on [address]. In that report, the Council refer to that site as being within comfortable walking distance of those bus stops and subsequent links to Chorley and Leyland. However, a copy of the report is appended to the appellant’s statement and this quote is not included. Furthermore, the Council points out that these proposals were considered not to be inappropriate development under paragraph 154(g) of the Framework. This allows development on previously developed land provided it does not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

In any event, I have visited the appeal site and noted that [address] is a long narrow Public Footpath (PROW) with some passing spaces. As part of a general walk in a rural area, the PROW provides an accessible route to [address]. However, it is an unmade track and the main road is about 500 metres away. It is unlit and although there are passing places, walking along this route in order to access everyday services and facilities, all times of the year and outside daylight hours, would not be a comfortable experience.

References are made to various documents and acceptable walking distances. Copies of these have not been supplied. Nonetheless, there is a bus stop at the top of the lane on [address] and there is a footpath along one side of [address] although it is fairly narrow. Other than waiting for a bus, it would be a long walk to reach any shops, facilities or services utilising the busy [address], A581 although there is a garden centre on the opposite side of the road. It would be possible to cycle along [address], although there is no cycle lane and vehicles are fast moving on this long straight road.

I appreciate that the Framework recognises that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas but I consider that this unmade PROW represents an unacceptably long distance to the services and facilities that future occupiers could reasonably expect for everyday living. The proposal would not therefore meet the requirements of criterion (c).

Furthermore, Core Strategy Policy 1 seeks to promote growth in settlements in order to promote sustainable transport options. In particular, it seeks to focus growth in well located brownfield sites in the key service centres of Chorley and Leyland. The Policy recognises that some greenfield development on the fringes of the main urban area will be required together with an appropriate scale of growth in local service centres. Limited growth in rural local service centres will be encouraged but in other places, small scale development will be limited to some infilling in smaller villages or conversions of buildings to meet local need. The appeal site does not fall within any of the areas identified for growth and would therefore conflict with Policy 1.

I conclude therefore, that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, conflict with the Framework and [name] paragraph 10.13. It would also conflict with Core Strategy Policy 1.

The Framework is clear that the fundamental aim of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out that there are both spatial and visual aspects of openness. The appeal site is an undeveloped area of open space. A dwelling here would introduce a building where currently there is none. [address] is a PROW and so available to use as part of a walk through a rural area. Therefore, the site is highly visible and any development here would be prominent.

I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt contrary to the Framework.

The Council state that on the basis of the appeal site having an area of 0.12 hectares (as stated on the application form), this represents a density of 8 dwellings per hectare. It argues that a more acceptable density would be 25 dwellings per hectare (dph) or even 16 dph (25-35 dph is quoted in the explanatory text accompanying Policy 5 for suburban and rural locations). These densities would amount to 3 or 2 dwellings respectively.

In the appellants view, the one dwelling proposed is an appropriate density for the site given the rural character of the area. However, other than the house at [address], there are no other dwellings in this immediate area. The cluster of development around [address] and the group of buildings in a wider rural setting defines the character of the area. Should the site be acceptable in all other respects, I see no reason why a higher density development could not be acceptable in this area.

An application for Planning in Principle has a quantum aspect, therefore, notwithstanding the issue of the site’s sustainability I conclude that the amount of development would fail to make efficient use of the land. Core Strategy Policy 5 and Section 11 of the Framework require development to make effective use of land. Although both the policy and paragraph 129 of the Framework recognise that in achieving appropriate densities, decisions should take into account the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting and secure densities of development which are in keeping with the local area, the efficient and effective use of that land is the main objective.

I conclude that the proposal would not make efficient use of land and would be in conflict with Core Strategy Policy 5 and the Framework. I consider the harm should be afforded moderate weight.

Although the Council expect to be in a position to improve its figures relating to housing land supply, due to the status of the emerging plan at this time, it cannot demonstrate a five year supply as required by the Framework. Given its current shortfall, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. This establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would provide two dwellings, which although modest, would make a positive contribution to the shortfall. However, the Framework promotes sustainable development in rural areas requiring housing to be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Therefore, even accepting that the Council has a shortfall of land for housing, for the reason I have explained above, this proposal would not represent sustainable development. The presumption in favour is therefore negated.

The Council has expressed concern about the character and appearance of the area. There are no details of the proposal at this stage, and no requirement to submit any, so any assessment of the impact on the character and appearance of the area is based on the principle of one dwelling on this site. Given the open character of the area, the introduction of a dwelling on this site would change what is now an undeveloped area of land into a domestic one. However, details of the proposed dwelling including height, scale and landscaping would be subject to a later assessment under the TDC stage, it is therefore, not reasonable to assume harm to the character and appearance of the area at this stage.

The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm, by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other circumstances. I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development and would also cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Harm caused by inappropriateness carries substantial weight.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. However, the proposal would be in an unsustainable location and also fail to make efficient use of land. Therefore, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the very special circumstances required to clearly outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness, and any other harm, do not exist. This would conflict with the Framework and paragraph 10.13 of the [name]. For the reasons stated above, the proposal would also conflict with Core Strategy Policy 1.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.