Appeal 6005784

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 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; 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]. • 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 an area of open land on the southern side of [address] (A581). Opposite is the [address] (PH) and its areas of car parking. There is a grouping of dwellings to the west, referred to as Shaw Green, with [address] and [address] running to the north and south respectively off [address]. The area is characterised by its semi-rural appearance with scatterings of buildings interspersed by open land.

No specific development plan policies relating to the Green Belt are referred to in the reason for refusal although it states that the appeal site is within the Green Belt as defined by the Chorley Local Plan 2012-2026. 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 e) of the Framework allows limited infilling in villages.

In order to assess whether the proposal would fall under paragraph 154 e) it is necessary to establish whether the proposal would be within a village, whether it would be infilling and, if so, would that infilling be limited.

The appeal site is directly opposite the [name], and, as I have described, there are groups of buildings along the A581 with a more noticeable grouping at Shaw Green to the west. Whilst the boundaries of a village can be difficult to define, in this case, the few village type characteristics present, for example, the pub and some other dwellings, does not define a village setting. From my observations of the immediate area and its wider surroundings, I cannot conclude that the appeal site can reasonably be described as being in a village location.

The appellant refers to case law, [name] v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Gravesham Borough Council [2015] but has not included a copy. However, it is relevant and is quoted as establishing that the physical, on-the ground reality of a village’s boundary is crucial, even of it differs from the defined Local Plan boundary. The appellant describes the appeal site as being bounded on three sides by established ribbon development along [address] and the physical on-the ground reality is that it forms part of a village cluster.

The Council has referred to another appeal decision at [address], Shaw Green2. The Inspector acknowledged that the proximity of a farm shop, a restaurant and a public house together with the group of buildings along the A581 could not reasonably be considered a village. Rather, that site was considered to be related to a section of ribbon development between larger settlements. [name] do not have details of the exact location of that site, the description in the appeal 2 Appeal Ref: APP/D2320/W/22/3305925. decision submitted indicates it is close to the site subject to this appeal. I consider that a similar description could also apply. Therefore, the on-the ground reality is that the appeal site is not located within a village. That being the case, it is not necessary for me to consider whether the proposal would be limited infilling.

The appellant also refers to paragraph 155 of the Framework. This 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 previously developed land as it comprises open agricultural land. 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.

In utilising grey belt land, criterion (a) of paragraph 155 requires that the development would not undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. The appeal site is described as having an area of about 0.76 hectares and so developing this land would represent a substantial encroachment into the countryside. This is a large area of open land which forms part of a substantial area of open countryside extending to the south which, if developed, would conflict with one of the principles of Green Belt. Taking the principles of Green Belt together therefore, the size of the land and its location would undermine the Green Belt in this part of the Borough. Whether it would undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt throughout the Borough however is unlikely as the Council has indicated that of the 14550 hectares of land designated as Green Belt, encroachment of less than 0.8 hectares would not be so great as to undermine the ability of the remaining Green Belt in the Borough to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

I am mindful of the Council’s reference to a large number of PIP applications for housing in the Green Belt. Whilst the cumulative effect would be considerable, each application must be assessed on its own merits.

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. 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. Whilst this is at an advanced stage, the matter of the supply of land for housing for the plan period remains unresolved. Although the Council has indicated that it will be able to demonstrate sufficient supply once further evidence has been submitted, at this stage the Council are not disputing its lack of supply. I note the appellants evidence regarding the status of emerging development plans but from the evidence before me, this matter is not under contention at this time. 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 on 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.

There is a PH directly opposite the appeal site and the is a farm shop to the west off the A581. Also, the appellant refers to bus stops within 800 metres of the site to the west which offer frequent bus services between Preston and Wigan and including several settlements along the way. A timetable for bus route 110 indicates a stop on [address] and offers an hourly service (approximately).

Paragraph 110 of the Framework acknowledges that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas but the services and facilities easily accessible from this site are limited. There may be a bus service available but to get to the bus stop would involve walking along the busy A581. I walked along part of this footpath and found sections of it to be narrow, uneven and at times further restricted by hedges. Traffic speeds are limited to 40mph but this is a fairly busy road and as a walking route, it is not one which is likely to be used regularly for day to day access to services and facilities. It is more likely that future occupiers would rely on a car.

The Council refer to an appeal decision at the Elephant, Dawbers Lane3. I was the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to determine that appeal. The Council points out that that site was closer to bus stops and the nearest shop than the appeal before me now. I found that the Elephant site was not in a sustainable location and having visited the area again for this appeal, I find that my view has not changed. Therefore, the location of the appeal site before me would involve a longer walk to access any bus stops and services and facilities required for day to day living and consequently would not meet the requirements under criterion (c).

I conclude that the proposal would not fall within an exception set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework nor would it meet the requirements of paragraph 155. Therefore, it would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt in conflict with the Framework. This carries substantial weight.

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 comprises an open field with a hedge along the boundary with [address] (A581). The site is very visible from the road and although details of layout and design, including height and appearance would be subject to a TDC 3 Appeal Ref: 6002973. application, introducing buildings where currently there are none would harm openness both spatially and visually. Therefore, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt contrary to the Framework.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. I have referred to this above. 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 up to nine dwellings which 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. Local Plan4 Policy 1 also promotes growth and investment principally in strategic locations and key service centres such as Chorley. Outside the main urban areas, the policy aims to promote vibrant local communities. 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 presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore does not apply.

The appellant has referred to numerous applications for PIP applications in the Borough which have been approved in 2025. These are described as being within 2km of the appeal site and all within the Green Belt. I do not have details of the circumstances of these approvals and so am unable to draw any comparisons between them and the proposal before me.

Furthermore, the Council has raised the matter of the appeal site not satisfying the [name] as set out in paragraph 156 of the Framework. Whilst the PPG describes major development as being 10 dwellings or 1 hectare, for housing, the Framework sets a lower threshold of 0.5 hectares for the [name] to apply. This requires that the proposal contributes towards affordable housing, necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure and the provision of new, or improvements to existing green spaces that are accessible to the public. This is not referred to in the reason for refusal and no reference is made to it by the appellant. However, contributions relating to affordable housing, infrastructure and green space/open space could be dealt with at the TDC stage.

The Council also refer to the proposal failing to make efficient use of land although this is not cited in the reason for refusal. The PIP procedure includes a quantum element and it is reasonable to include the efficient use of the site should the principle be acceptable in all other respects. Notwithstanding, the issue of inappropriateness in the Green Belt therefore, the proposal would amount to 4 [name] Local Development Framework July 2012. approximately 12 dwelling per hectare (dph) which is accepted by the main parties to be low density. The Council has indicated that a density of 21 dph would allow 16 dwellings, which could be accommodated for on this site.

Section 11 of the Framework is concerned with making effective use of land although paragraph 129 recognises that decisions should take into account the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting. Although buildings are generally scattered along the A581, the group of dwellings to the west is more substantial and the prevailing character is not that of high density residential properties. The actual appearance of dwellings and their configuration would be subject to determination at the TDC stage but given the size of the site, there would appear to be scope for a higher density development. However, given that I have found the principle of development unacceptable and a larger number of dwellings would place the proposal outside the scope of a PIP application, the amount is not a deciding factor in this appeal.

The Council has also raised the effect of the proposal on 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 up to nine dwellings on this site. Given that the site is currently an undeveloped open field, the proposed development would have some impact on the character and appearance of the area. However, given that details of the proposed dwellings 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, as well as being inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the proposal would be in an unsustainable location. 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.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.