# Land to rear of White House Farm (5 Bescar Lane), Bescar, Scarisbrick - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006286 - **Application reference:** 2025/0598/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 4-9 dwellings on a strip of land behind roadside development - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, agricultural-land-BMV - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.86 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(5), F5, GB7(1)(g) - **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 GN1, GN3, EN2 - **Main issues:** flood risk, grey belt, BMV/peaty soils, S5(5) balance - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, flood-sequential-test, substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, s5-5-green-belt-route, costs-refused ## Summary PIP for 4-9 dwellings on a strip of land behind roadside development at Bescar. The site was agreed grey belt, with unmet need (1.86-year supply) and a sustainable location, so it was not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). The appeal was dismissed on surface water flood risk: there was no FRA and no sequential test, and that "substantially outweighed" the moderate housing benefit in the S5(5) balance. The appellant's costs claim (costs PDF) was refused. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The 2026 Framework was applied after comments (DL ¶3). - **Grey belt and GB7(1)(g): PASS on all limbs.** "There is no dispute … that the appeal site does not strongly contribute to these aforementioned purposes" (DL ¶19). Footnote 41: "the Council … are unable to demonstrate a deliverable supply … at just 1.86 years … a demonstrable unmet need" (DL ¶20). "it would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt" (DL ¶22). - **Flood risk (F5): FAIL.** "Given part of the appeal site is located within an area at risk of flooding and no site-specific flood risk assessment is before me, the sequential test should be applied … the sequential test has not been carried out" (DL ¶10). "the issue of flood risk is fundamental to establishing whether or not the site is a suitable location" even at the PIP stage (DL ¶13). - **BMV / peaty soils: no conflict.** The strip is narrow, formerly hard-surfaced and hard to farm (DL ¶25-26). ## Planning balance The S5(5) route: "Where development would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶28). Housing had moderate weight "given the relatively small number of dwellings", and flood risk considerable weight, which "would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶28-29). ## What made the difference This was not a Green Belt loss. Every GB7(1)(g) limb was conceded or found. The failure was the absence of a sequential test or site-specific FRA for a site with surface water risk. With an FRA showing a safe layout, the exception in F4/F5 for surface-water-only sites would have been available (DL ¶9). The scheme would then very probably have been allowed. ## Transferable points - Once GB7 is satisfied, S5(5) gives a presumption to approve unless benefits are "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶27-28). - Flood risk is a principle-of-location matter at the PIP stage, and a sequential test is needed where no site-specific FRA shows safety (DL ¶10-13; costs DL ¶5). - 4-9 dwellings against a 1.86-year supply attracted only moderate weight (DL ¶28). - A formerly hard-surfaced narrow strip of nominal Grade 1 / peaty land did not engage BMV/soils harm (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** agreed not strongly contributing to (a), (b), (d) (DL 19) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** fn41 — 1.86-year supply is a demonstrable unmet need (DL 20) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** council agreed sustainable location (DL 21) - **GB7(1)(g): pass.** not inappropriate; complies with LP GN1 (DL 22) - **F5: fail (considerable weight).** parts of site at 1-in-30/100/1000 surface water risk, whole site under climate change per council; no FRA and no sequential test; flood risk is a PIP-stage principle matter (DL 7-14, 29) - **S5(5): fail.** not-inappropriate route leads to "substantially outweighed" balance; flood risk substantially outweighs moderate housing benefit (DL 27-29) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** 4-9 homes against 1.86-year supply — "relatively small number" (DL 28) - **Local Plan EN2: accord.** narrow, formerly hard-surfaced strip — no prejudice to Grade 1 / peaty soil supply (DL 23-26) ## Key facts - Grey belt, unmet need and sustainable location all agreed; scheme not inappropriate - Surface water flood risk on parts of the site; no site-specific FRA and no sequential test - Council supply 1.86 years - Costs application by appellant refused (flood risk and soils legitimately PIP-stage principle matters) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006286 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/91222a44-0327-4951-ba29-17494a4b219d - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5a1e3da6-6a4b-48a4-990b-f3d2202dea73 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006286.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.