- Decision
- dismissed, 30 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes
- Authority
- West Lancashire (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6004952
- Application reference
- 2025/0330/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Five dwellings and a block of 4 flats following demolition of former office and warehouse buildings
- Homes
- 9
- Site context
- inside settlement, PDL, flood zone 2
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- F5, S4
- Development plan policies
- West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD 2013 GN3, GN4, GN5, EC1, EC2
- Main issues
- flood risk sequential test; loss of employment land
Summary
Nine homes on a former employment site inside Tarleton. Dismissed because no sequential test was done: part of the access lies in Flood Zone 2, so the F5 exception for sites with no built development in a risk area was not met. The loss of employment land was also unjustified, the buildings having been in storage use until 2023. Substantial weight to housing did not avoid the S4 "substantially outweighed" conclusion.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the revised Framework" (DL ¶2).
- F5 sequential test: FAIL. "The FRADS identifies part of the access serving the site within Flood Zone 2 … I do not consider that the proposal falls within the exception set out in Policy F5" (DL ¶8). "A proportionate approach to an assessment does not displace the requirement in Policy F5 for a sequential test" and EA silence does not establish an exception (DL ¶9). Mitigation is an F7 matter (DL ¶10).
- Employment land: CONFLICT. "the proposal would result in the loss of employment land and premises that has not been shown to be justified" (DL ¶17).
- HO7: substantial. "I therefore attach substantial weight to this benefit" (DL ¶20).
- L2(1)(b): not engaged at substantial weight. "I am therefore not satisfied that the site is underutilised in the sense contemplated by Policy L2(1)(b)" (DL ¶21); PDL reuse limited weight.
Planning balance
S4(1): housing (substantial), PDL reuse and landscaping/biodiversity (limited) against flood (significant) and employment loss (significant). "the benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects identified" (DL ¶25). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶26). F5 was not routed as an S4(2)(c) trigger; it was weighed as an adverse effect.
What made the difference
The access route. Placing the houses outside the flood zone did not help because F5's exception expressly covers access and escape routes. A sequential test covering reasonably available lower-risk sites, and up-to-date marketing of the employment premises, were the missing pieces.
Transferable points
- F5's exception requires that no built development, "including access or escape routes", be in an area at risk; dwellings outside the zone are not enough (DL ¶7–8).
- F4(3) proportionality does not displace the sequential test; an absent EA objection does not establish an exception (DL ¶9).
- A recently used employment site is not "underutilised" under L2(1)(b), so that policy's substantial weight is unavailable (DL ¶21).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| F4(3) | neutral | proportionate site-specific FRA; F4(3) concerns scope of the FRA and does not displace the sequential test (DL 5-6, 9) | |
| F5 | fail | significant | part of access in Flood Zone 2 and newer modelling shows wider risk, so the F5 exception (no built development incl. access/escape in risk area) not met; no sequential test (DL 7-10); adverse effect significant weight (DL 23) |
| F7 | neutral | FRADS mitigation goes to whether development could be made safe, not to the sequential test (DL 10) | |
| CC3 | conflict | fails to minimise vulnerability to flooding through F4-F8 (DL 11, 23) | |
| LP EC1/EC2/GN4 (local) | conflict | significant | loss of employment land not justified; storage use until Nov 2023; no up-to-date marketing (DL 12-17, 24) |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | 9 dwellings; council cannot show adequate supply (figure not stated) (DL 20) |
| L2(1)(b) | benefit | limited | not "underutilised" in the L2(1)(b) sense because employment use not shown to have ended, so no substantial weight; PDL reuse limited weight (DL 21) |
| S4 | fail | benefits substantially outweighed by flood and employment-loss harms (DL 25) | |
| Transitional(2) | neutral | GN3 and GN5 "broadly consistent with the sequential approach in the Framework" (DL 5) |
Key facts
- Former Valera food-equipment office/warehouse in Tarleton settlement boundary; storage use until November 2023 (DL 4, 15)
- Dwellings outside the flood zone but part of the access in Flood Zone 2; newer modelling shows greater extent (DL 8)
- No Environment Agency objection, but that does not establish an F5 exception (DL 9)
- 2020 outline permission for housing (buildings then unused since 2012) distinguished by the intervening employment use (DL 15)
- Council cannot demonstrate an adequate supply; figure not stated (DL 20)
- Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.