Appeal 6004845

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.

The appeal site comprises two buildings set back from the road behind large gates. It includes an area of hardstanding and open grassland. One of the buildings is a large agricultural storage building, steel clad with a roller shutter door, approved under the prior notification procedure. The other is a smaller open fronted agricultural building/animal shelter.

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 Strategy2. 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 dwellings 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. These are (a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-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 appeal site is not 2 [name] Local Development Framework July 2012 ([name]). previously developed land as the site and buildings are used for agriculture. Local Plan3 Policy BNE5 is referred to but 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. Of relevance is criterion (c). On the basis of the information submitted by the Council, the status of the large building is that if it is no longer required for agriculture it should be removed. The site would then revert to open land within the countryside (except for the smaller building which I have little information about). In which case the proposal would encroach development into the open countryside. However, given that there is a building on site now and I have no evidence that the building would be removed and this is not a matter that has been pursued legally, I cannot with any certainty say that the purposes of the Green Belt, taken together, would be fundamentally undermined.

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 Central Lancashire Authorities 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 and the Council have produced details of transport routes and services and facilities accessible from them. They disagree on the ease with which future occupiers would utilise these routes. I note that [name] and [name] is approximately 400 metres away and other educational facilities would be a bus ride away.

The nearest settlement is Mawdsley which is about 1.5 kilometres away, a walking time of about 20 minutes connecting Mawdsley to Chorley, Ormskirk, Southport and surrounding settlements. These routes provide services and rail connections at Croston, Rufford and Parbold which are accessible by a 20 minute cycle ride enabling onward travel further afield to Preston, Wigan, Liverpool and Manchester. Timetables for the non-school bus services have been submitted. The appellant also outlines existing employment opportunities in the area including [address] which forms part of the built-up area to the west of the appeal site. The 3 Chorley Council – Chorley Local Plan 2012 – 2026 Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document, Adopted 21 July 2015. appellant quotes another Council report for a different development in which the Towngate area is described as forming part of the functional part of Mawdsley. However, the appeal site is further to the east, into the open countryside from the Towngate area and clearly outside the settlement boundary of Mawdsley.

The appellant cites personal experience of the site and surrounding area for accessing education facilities and local shops and other facilities in Mawdsley and Eccleston and considers walking or cycling along [address] and the surrounding country roads to access services and facilities as a reasonable and accepted part of living in this area.

Notwithstanding the detailed identification of services and facilities, I consider that a [address] or cycle ride along narrow, unlit country lanes with little by way of footpaths does not make the site sustainable. [address] has a 60 mph speed limit and especially in the winter or outside daylight hours, walking on these roads would not be realistic to a number of people, even cycling would not be without a degree of danger. I note the Council’s reference to [name] (MfS) and its definition of a walkable distance being 800m or a [address]. However, it also acknowledges that the quality of a walking experience is a factor in ensuring pedestrians feel safe.

The Framework recognises that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas but I consider that this site is too far away from the services and facilities reasonably expected for everyday living to be easily accessible other than by a car. 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. [name], Policy 1 seeks to focus growth in well located brownfield sites in the key service centre of Chorley. 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, including Eccleston, will be encouraged. 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 existing buildings effect the openness of the site. I have no information about the status of the smaller of the two buildings but the larger one was erected under the prior notification procedure. The conditions for this are set out in the General Permitted Development Order (GDPO)4. Condition 5 is referred to by the Council as requiring the building to be removed from the land if it is no longer required for agriculture. 4 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A (as amended). The two buildings stand alone in the countryside and no information has been submitted about their status in terms of any agricultural activity that may be taking place associated with them but if the larger building is no longer required for agricultural purposes and it was subsequently removed, the impact of two dwellings would be that much greater both spatially and visually.

In any event, the appeal site includes more than just the buildings but also the hardstanding area close to the access to [address] and also an area of open land to the south of the buildings. Two dwellings with their associated domestic paraphernalia would have a spatial and visual impact on openness.

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

The application form states that the appeal site is 0.19 hectares which the Council state represents a density of 10 dwellings per hectare. The Council refer to the emerging local plan which, for a site of this size in a sustainable location, would expect to accommodate four dwellings on the basis of 21 dwellings per hectare. The provision of two dwellings on the site would fall short of this.

[name] have stated above, the emerging plan carries limited weight but the calculation is a useful guide. Needless to say, a site of this size in a sustainable location could accommodate more than two dwellings. I note the appellant’s comments that the character of dwellings in the area is that of detached dwellings on spacious plots. However, Section 11 of the Framework is concerned with making effective use of land and although paragraph 129 recognises that decisions should take into account the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting, the scattering of dwellings in this area is not sufficient to define a prevailing character.

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 land. This would result in moderate harm, in conflict with the Framework.

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, this proposal would not represent sustainable development for the reason I have already outlined above. 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 two dwellings on this site. However, there are buildings on the site now and although the larger one may be subject to removal if it is no longer required for agriculture, that matter has not been fully addressed as part of this proposal. Given that details of the proposed dwellings including height, scale and landscaping would be subject to a later assessment under the TDC stage, it is 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.