Appeal 6005045

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal includes a dwelling and a detached garage. The garage is not included in the description of development although it is shown on the plans and referred to as being part of the proposal by both parties. I have therefore taken the garage into account in my assessment.

The Council has refused permission on the basis of the location of the appeal site being an unsustainable one and the proposed dwelling would be outside the settlement boundary. However, the site is within the Green Belt and it is necessary to firstly establish whether the proposal would be inappropriate development. Whilst both parties agree that the proposal would not be inappropriate development under paragraph 154 g) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the Council go on to assess it against paragraph 155 and conclude that it fails criterion c). I shall expand on this further below.

The main issues are: - • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and its effect on openness, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant development plan policies; • whether the location is acceptable for the proposed house with regard to relevant development plan policies and access to services and facilities; 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 a lean-to building attached to a larger pitched roof building and a smaller timber building and access to them. The access is a track across open land through a gateway off a public right of way (PROW) off [address]. The use of the appeal site has been established as being for storage (commercial and ancillary to the use of [site address] ) by virtue of a Certificate of Lawfulness1. The larger building is in a poor state of repair with sections of roof missing but I saw on my site visit that it is used for the storage of miscellaneous items. Needless to say, whilst it appears as an agricultural building, the Council has accepted that it is not. I have no evidence upon which to come to a different view. That being the case, the appeal site would fall within the definition of previously developed land as described in the Framework.

The Framework explains that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It makes it clear that development is considered inappropriate unless it satisfies one of the exceptions cited in paragraphs 154 and 155. Paragraph 154 g) of the Framework allows the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Local Plan2 Policy GN1 states that development proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed against national policy and any relevant Local Plan policies. A copy of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document relating to Green Belts has3 also been submitted, although this pre-dates the current Framework and parts of it are out of date.

In assessing the proposal against paragraph 154 g) it therefore falls to consider whether the proposal would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework sets out in paragraph 142 that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Planning Practice Guidance identifies factors which can be taken into consideration when assessing the impact of a development on Green Belt openness. It states that openness is capable of both spatial and visual aspects. The submitted evidence indicates that the proposed dwelling and garage would result in a volume increase of approximately 6.5%. Spatially therefore, there would be a greater impact on openness.

The existing building has a long lean-to roof running from the eaves of the attached building. The roof of the proposed dwelling would be higher than this but the house has been designed so that elements of it are stepped down in height which reduces its overall massing and visual impact. Visually, the dwelling together with the garage would appear larger. However, whilst the proposal would have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms, the harm in this respect would be modest. It would not therefore cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt and therefore not conflict with the Framework. 1 Ref: 2021/1321/LDC. 2 West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document October 2013. 3 West Lancashire Borough Council Supplementary Planning Document Development in the Green Belt October 2015 (SPD).

The Council has reached the same conclusion as I have with regard to paragraph 154 g) of the Framework but has then gone on to assess it against paragraph 155. This indicates that development should not be regarded as inappropriate where it satisfies the criteria set out. Briefly these are, that it would (a) utilise grey belt land; (b) there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development; and (c) the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraph 110 and 115 of the Framework. The Council accept that the proposal would meet criteria (a) and (b) but would fail in respect to criterion (c).

Whilst a fundamental aim of the Framework is to promote sustainable development, I have found that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt under paragraph 154 (g). It is therefore not necessary to assess it against paragraph 155.

I conclude therefore, that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would not conflict with Local Plan Policy GN1, the SPD or the Framework in this regard. It is therefore not necessary for me to consider whether there are other considerations that may amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

Notwithstanding my conclusions regarding paragraph 155 above, paragraph 83 of the framework promotes sustainable development in rural areas and housing should be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Paragraph 84 seeks to avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside. The proposal would not result in an isolated dwelling as the appeal site forms part of a small group of buildings including [address], [site address] , a pair of semi-detached houses to the south and [address] on the opposite side of [address]. However, it is outside any defined settlement.

The appellant states that a dedicated school bus/coach collects children each school day directly outside the site access. Also, a local bus service runs along [address] that stops on request. The site is also accessible to a network of PROW’s with a public footpath at the site’s entrance off [address], to the north of the building, as I have referred to above. The appellant also refers to a document produced by Lancashire County Council, ‘[name] in [name] which identifies [address] as a cycle route. A copy of this document has not been produced but this statement has not been contested by the Council. I accept that there are limited bus services and whilst these may assist in transporting children to school, there is little evidence of the frequency of any services available for people to access services and facilities for their day to day living.

Whilst the site may be within walking or cycling distances of Parbold and Mawdsley as well as those in Bispham Green and other rural villages, including Hilldale, this is via country roads, mostly without footpaths and with limited street lighting. Also, although there may be routes utilising PROW’s, [address] is a country road in a rural area and these routes are less likely to be used during the winter months and after dark. I appreciate that sustainable transport solutions would vary between urban and rural areas but in this case, future occupiers would be more likely to access services and facilities by car. I accept that these may not be long car journeys, but the length of a journey does not define a sustainable location.

The Council has submitted an appeal decision for [name], [address], Newburgh4 in support of rejecting proposals were there is limited access to services and facilities. The appellant argues that the two site are significantly different and refers to another appeal decision at Elm Farm5 which the appellant considers shares greater similarities with the appeal site. In that case, the Inspector is quoted as recognising that rural communities will not always benefit from the same range of transport options as urban areas. The appellant has not submitted a copy of this so I am unable to determine the actual outcome or assess the extent of the similarities referred to for myself. The appellant has also referenced other appeals and Council decisions but also has not submitted sufficient details from which I can draw any informed similarities with the case before me. In any event, whether it is the example put forward by the Council or those referred to by the appellant, each case must be assessed individually and there is nothing presented to me in these cited examples that leads me to alter my

I conclude that the location would not be acceptable for the proposed house with regard to its position outside a settlement boundary and accessibility to services and facilities contrary to West Lancashire Local Plan6 policies SP1, GN1 and RS1 which collectively take a positive approach to sustainable development within settlement boundaries.

The Council has stated that it does not have a five year supply of housing land as required by the Framework. It states that it can only demonstrate a supply for 1.86 years. Given this 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 one family dwelling, which would make a positive, albeit a small 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. It also promotes sustainable transport. Likewise, Local Plan Policies SP1, GN1 and RS1 promote sustainable development with a focus on the settlement hierarchy. Therefore, even accepting that the Council has a shortfall of land for housing, this proposal would not represent sustainable development for the reasons I have already outlined above.

The appellant has stated that the dwelling would be a self build/custom built dwelling and therefore exempt from the duty to meet [name] (BNG). The Council state that in the event of an approval, a Section 106 legal agreement 4 Appeal Ref: APP/P2365/W/25/3375999. 5 Appeal Ref: APP/P2365/W/21/3277552. 6 West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document October 2013. would be required to ensure compliance. No such agreement has been submitted nor have any other measures been put forward to address this matter. However, given my conclusion on my second issue I do not intend to pursue this matter further.

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.

The proposal would not be inappropriate development and therefore the effect on the Green Belt would be a neutral one. I have also found that it would not harm the openness of the Green Belt. However, I have found that the location of the appeal site is not a sustainable one. There is a need for housing within the Borough and the provision of one dwelling is a positive benefit. However, the Framework seeks to ensure that housing in rural areas is located to enhance or maintain rural communities. It also promotes sustainable transport, prioritising pedestrian and cycle movements as well as access to public transport. The proposal would fail with regard to these matters which I afford significant weight.

Thus, the identified harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The proposal would conflict with the development plan policies outlined above. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Consequently, for the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.