Appeal 6004878

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs is made by [name] against Chorley Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal is against the Council’s failure to determine the application for Permission in Principle (PiP), within the relevant statutory timeframe. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that a PiP application is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. This route has 2 stages: the first (‘PiP’ stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second stage (technical details consent (TDC)) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the PiP stage, and I have had regard to the Council’s statement which provides clarity in terms of the reasons it would have refused permission for the development, had it been able to do so.

The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) provides that PiP may not be granted for major development. Whilst major development is defined in the Development Management Procedure Order (2015) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the PiP Order has its own definition. For the purposes of that Order, major development includes development comprising 10 or more dwellings, or development carried out on a site having an area of 1ha or more. The PiP regime is self-contained. Therefore, its definition provides the operative statutory test. The proposal falls below those thresholds and is therefore not major development for the purposes of the permission in principle regime.

The Council has raised procedural concerns that the site edged red has been made artificially smaller than it should be to avoid the need for development plan policy requirements such as affordable housing. The western boundary of the appeal site does not follow any physical boundary on the ground and that the proposal would thus leave a narrow parcel of land left over. Nonetheless, it is possible for applications to relate to a smaller parcel within a wider holding. [name] am referred to the [name] judgment1, I am not satisfied that the proposal should be considered on the basis of a theoretical site area or proposal as suggested by the Council. There is no suggestion in the evidence before me that this additional strip of land would come forward separately for housing. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the scheme applied for by the appellant.

The Central Lancashire Local Plan 2023–2041 (CLLP) being prepared jointly by Preston City Council and Chorley and South Ribble Borough Council’s, is at an advanced stage of preparation and is therefore a material consideration. However, the weight to be afforded to its policies must be assessed having regard to paragraph 49 of the Framework. In this respect, the examination of the plan is ongoing, and the appointed Inspectors have identified that further significant work is required in order to address concerns relating to the soundness of the plan, including matters of housing requirement and supply specifically for Chorley Borough Council2. The examining Inspectors are clear that the additional works to address the plan’s deficiencies is expected to be substantial and would introduce new evidence, which is likely to result in the need for further Hearing sessions.

While the 3 Councils have agreed that they will prepare the additional evidence to give assurance that the emerging plan is sound and able to progress to adoption, I do not have this evidence before me, nor any indication that the examining Inspectors have accepted it.

In light of this and having regard to the Framework’s advice that the extent of unresolved objections is a key factor in determining weight, I am not satisfied that any more than limited weight can be attributed to the relevant policies of the emerging plan at this stage. My view is consistent with the [name] judgment3. The degree of weight afforded to Policy HS6 relating to density is inevitably constrained by the broader and more fundamental uncertainties relating to housing provision identified by the examining Inspectors. The policies of the emerging CLLP therefore attract limited weight.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having reference to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with regard to; • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and development plan policies; • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; • Whether the proposal amounts to an efficient use of land; and 1 New Dawn Homes Ltd v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 3314 (Admin). 2 Examination of the Central Lancashire Local Plan 2023-2041 [name] – [name] and Related Matters Letter dated 4 March 2026 as contained at [name] of the appellant’s Rebuttal of the Council’s Appeal Statement. 3 Woodcock Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 1173 (Admin). • If the development is inappropriate, whether the 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 required to justify the proposal.

Together, the [name] (CS) 2012 and the Chorley Local Plan (CLP) 2015, set the spatial vision for new development including identifying a hierarchy of settlements where growth and investment is to be directed. The appeal site is located in the Green Belt, outside of any defined settlement. In such locations, development is expected to be small-scale and limited to appropriate infilling, the conversion of buildings and proposals to meet local need unless there are exceptional reasons for large-scale redevelopment schemes. From the evidence before me, the proposal would not meet any of these categories of development. As neither party identifies the appeal site as previously developed land, Policy BNE5 of the CLP which permits the reuse, infilling or redevelopment of such sites, is not engaged.

The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it meets one of the identified exceptions set out at paragraph 154 of the Framework, or if the circumstances in paragraph 155 apply. The proposal would comprise housing development on undeveloped land. Neither party contends that the proposal would meet any of the paragraph 154 exceptions and I have seen no substantive evidence indicate I should take a different view.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate, where specific criteria are met. These include that (a) the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; (b) there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; (c) the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. The proposal must meet all of the criteria to not constitute inappropriate development. Criterion (d) relating to the ‘[name] would not be applicable as the proposal is not major development.

The parties dispute whether the appeal site can be considered to be a sustainable location. Paragraph 110 of the Framework acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, which should be taken into account. Paragraph 115 seeks to ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location. It also aims to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. In this regard, the Framework prioritises access to shops, facilities and services on foot and by cycling, followed by public transport.

The adopted strategy of the CS seeks to locate development where it can reduce the need to travel, maximises access to services and supports a more sustainable pattern of growth. It does this by identifying settlements and directing development towards them whilst simultaneously limiting development in the countryside. In this regard Policy 1 of the CS is consistent with the Framework’s approach.

The appeal site forms an undeveloped site to the rear of some sporadic development within the countryside. There are a small number of dispersed facilities nearby including a restaurant, small farm shop and a pub further along the A581. However, they would not in themselves meet the everyday needs of the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings. The shop located at the petrol filling station is approximately one mile from the appeal site such that it is likely to be beyond average walking distance for most people.

Moreover, although acknowledging the presence of some streetlighting, the pedestrian infrastructure along the A581 is substandard with narrow and/or discontinuous pavements requiring regular crossing of a frequently trafficked road to reach some of these facilities. Given these conditions and the speed of vehicles, it would not feel particularly pleasant or safe to walk even short distances along these routes, especially with young children, or in the case of those with impaired mobility. There may be some opportunities for cycling but due to the narrowness of the road and the frequency of traffic, it is unlikely to be pursued by anyone other than the most experienced and confident of road cyclists.

Hourly bus services operate from nearby stops to Leyland and Chorley which are key service centres. Preston and Wigan are also accessible via the bus with journey times of 50 minutes, and a rail connection is available at Croston. A school bus also operates locally. However, it is unclear whether all of the services operate 7 days per week including late into the evenings and weekends, such that it would provide a realistic choice for different journey requirements. The appellant’s evidence appears to suggest that the 337 and 110 routes do not extend beyond 19:35. The 347 service although extending into the evening, has gaps of approximately 2 hours between some buses, which it seems to me is an infrequent rural service.

Nonetheless, future occupants would typically have to travel away from the appeal site to visit supermarkets, access employment areas and leisure/medical facilities to meet their everyday needs. Even if I could accept that there is an hourly bus service, it is not so frequent that travelling by car to these destinations, as well as nearby settlements such as Eccleston, would be easier, quicker and a more convenient choice for most journeys.

I recognise that my findings differ from those of the Council and the Inspector in relation to the site at 14 Southport Road4. However, in that case, the accessibility of the appeal site was not a matter in dispute between the parties and the Inspector had no reason to take a different view based on the evidence presented.

While living in rural areas can result in a greater reliance on private vehicles, the CS and the Framework seek to focus development in locations which limit the need to travel, and [my emphasis] offer a genuine choice of transport modes, prioritising walking and cycling above other means. If the limited level of accessibility evident in this case were sufficient, it would follow that a wide range of locations in the open countryside, where occasional facilities or infrequent bus services are present, could be regarded as sustainable. This would run counter to 4 the clear intention of both the development plan and the Framework, to concentrate development in the most sustainable locations.

Having carefully considered the specific evidence before me and my own observations of the site and its surroundings, I am not persuaded that the appeal site would provide a genuinely sustainable location in terms of paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. The proposal would not materially limit the need to travel. Neither has it been demonstrated that there would be a genuine choice of public transport modes to a sufficient degree. The future occupants of the proposed dwellings would thus be car dependant.

The proposal would therefore conflict with criterion (c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework and would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would also fail to comply with Policy 1 of the CS.

Even if I could consider the development to meet a demonstrable unmet need for housing and that it would utilise grey belt land without fundamentally undermining the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area, it would not prevent the development from being considered inappropriate. This is because all of the paragraph 155 criteria are required to be met simultaneously.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework indicates that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt, with a key objective being to keep land permanently open. Openness has spatial and visual aspects and is a matter of planning judgement5.

The appeal site comprises an undeveloped agricultural field. Although recognising that matters of layout and scale would be determined at the TDC stage, the erection of up to [address], car parking and accesses on a site that is currently free from built development would inevitably result in a spatial loss of openness. The mass and scale of the development would be visible in localised public views from [site address] and the access track to [address].

The urbanisation and visual encroachment of built development would therefore be apparent. Whilst the reduction in openness to the Green Belt as a whole would be modest and localised, permanent harm to the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt would nonetheless occur. Consequently, I find conflict with paragraph 142 of the Framework.

The PiP regime allows a range to be expressed in the description of development. In this case, a sizeable range of between one and 9 dwellings is proposed. The PPG is clear that the ‘amount’ of development proposed is an intrinsic consideration at the PiP stage. Whether or not it was considered by the Council and Inspector in relation to the [address] site6, I am satisfied that it falls to be considered here. 5 As set out in the Planning Practice Guide Paragraph: 013 [name]: 64-013-20250225. 6 Planning application reference number 25/00889/PIP and appeal reference APP/D2320/W/25/3376087.

At the lower end of the scale, a single dwelling on this site would result in a density of 2 dwellings per hectare (dph) as cited by the Council. This would plainly represent an inefficient use of land. Given that a TDC application has to be in accordance with the PiP that has been granted, there is no clear evidence to demonstrate that a proposal for one dwelling on this site could be prevented, given that it forms part of the description of development.

The provision of 9 dwellings would result in a maximum density of 18dph on a site of 0.48ha. Even accepting that this is a rural area, that would not represent an efficient use of land when the CS identifies suburban and rural locations within the plan area are typically built at 25-35dph7.

Whilst the appellant suggests that detached dwellings on large plots are predominant in the locality, they have not presented any density calculations of the existing development to compare with the proposed scheme. The Council points to the development at [address] as being approved with a density of 25dph which would be consistent with the expectations of the CS. Therefore, even in a rural setting of spacious development, I cannot be satisfied that a density of between 2-18dph would represent an efficient use of land. Paragraph 130 of the Framework is unambiguous in stating that local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make an efficient use of land.

As density was not a matter in dispute between the parties for the development at [address], it would not have been necessary for the Inspector to consider it.

I find that the proposal would not make an efficient use of land, even if it was built at the maximum part of the specified range. It would therefore conflict with Policy 5 of the CS that seeks to secure densities of development which are in-keeping with local areas.

The proposal would result in inappropriate development in the Green Belt, that would also result in a loss of openness. The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be allowed except in very special circumstances. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The Council advances its housing land supply position by reference in part to the emerging CLLP. However, for the reasons given above, I afford only limited weight to that plan. On that basis, I cannot place reliance on its housing requirement or supply evidence as a robust indicator of the current housing land supply position. In addition, the [name] position indicates that delivery has been significantly below requirement. In the absence of clear and up-to-date evidence demonstrating a 5-year supply, I proceed on the basis that such a supply has not been robustly established, a position that the Council appears to accept.

The proposal would make an important contribution towards boosting the supply of housing in an area where there is a deficiency, resulting in social benefits. There 7 Paragraph 8.17 of the Council’s CS. would be economic advantages during construction, as well as from the ongoing patronage of services and facilities in the wider area from future occupiers.

Whilst any contribution is worthwhile, especially in a position of a housing supply deficit, the benefits of a small-scale proposal of this nature would be modest overall, tempered by the siting of the dwellings contrary to the Council’s strategy of locating development in accessible locations and failing to make an efficient use of land.

Even if there is a shortfall in the 5-year supply on the scale suggested by the appellant, the other considerations carrying modest weight, do not, individually or cumulatively, outweigh the substantial weight I must give to the Green Belt harm. Therefore, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

Paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework directs that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies that are most important for determining an application are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless certain circumstances apply. One such circumstance is where the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance, such as the Green Belt, provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

I have found that the proposal would conflict with the Framework relating to the Green Belt. Under the provisions of Framework paragraph 11(d)(i), this provides a strong reason for refusing the development.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan. There are no considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to lead me to a decision other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.