- Decision
- dismissed, 22 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes
- Authority
- West Lancashire (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6007428
- Application reference
- 2025/0998/PIP
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for 1-3 dwellings
- Homes
- 3
- Site context
- green belt, rural lane, open countryside
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 GN3, IF2, RS1
- Main issues
- grey belt; sustainable location; inappropriate development; openness; VSC balance
Summary
A PIP for up to three dwellings on a gap along a rural 60 mph lane in the West Lancashire Green Belt. The site was accepted as grey belt and unmet need was established. However, the lack of any footway between the site and the pedestrian network at Southport Road meant it failed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3, even though the distance was short and some street lighting existed. As inappropriate development with openness harm, it was dismissed on the VSC balance. The S5(5) balance was expressly held not to be engaged.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties were given the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework (DL ¶2).
- Grey belt: PASS. "purpose (c) does not form part of the assessment of whether land is grey belt. Moreover, the relevant question in respect of purpose (a) is whether the site makes a strong contribution to restricting the sprawl of a large built-up area" (DL ¶9). The Inspector refers to "the guidance in Annex E of the Framework" (DL ¶10).
- Sustainable location (iii) / TR3: FAIL. "the issue is whether future occupants would have realistic and safe opportunities to reach the pedestrian network, public transport and nearby services and facilities without relying principally on the private car" (DL ¶14). "The absence of a footway between the site and the existing pedestrian network is a significant constraint. Pedestrians would be required to walk within the carriageway … The presence of street lighting along parts of Plex Lane does not overcome the absence of dedicated pedestrian provision" (DL ¶15). "Although the distance involved is relatively short, the quality and safety of the route materially limit its usefulness … the proposal would not provide good accessibility for different users or offer a genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶16).
- Comparator distinguished. Holly Farm nearby was approved because "a footway connection to Southport Road was secured" (DL ¶¶13, 17). May Cottages (APP/P2365/W/25/3375999, Feb 2026) was also considered.
- S5(1)(e) infill. Loose-knit pattern, "In any event, whether the proposal could reasonably be described as infilling does not determine the sustainability of its location" (DL ¶18).
- Openness: localised spatial and visual harm from consolidating a loose-knit group (DL ¶¶22–24).
Planning balance
GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to inappropriateness, plus openness harm and car-reliance harm. Moderate weight to 1–3 homes. VSC not shown (DL ¶27). "as the proposal would be inappropriate development under Policy GB7, the further balance applicable to development that is not inappropriate under Policy S5(5) is not engaged" (DL ¶28).
What made the difference
The missing footway link. The Inspector contrasted this site with the neighbouring Holly Farm scheme, which was acceptable because it secured a footway connection. A short distance and partial lighting could not make up for walking in the carriageway of a 60 mph lane with farm traffic. If a continuous footway to Southport Road had been deliverable, limb (iii) would probably have passed.
Transferable points
- Under GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3 the test is "realistic and safe opportunities" to reach services "without relying principally on the private car" (DL ¶14).
- A short distance does not save a route with no footway on a narrow, fast rural lane; street lighting "does not overcome the absence of dedicated pedestrian provision" (DL ¶¶15–16).
- A nearby approval that secured a footway link is distinguishable where the appeal scheme offers none (DL ¶¶13, 17).
- Purpose (c) is irrelevant to grey belt status; purpose (a) asks whether the site strongly restricts the sprawl of a large built-up area (DL ¶9).
- Where GB7 fails, the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance is not engaged (DL ¶28).
- The small scale of a scheme is acknowledged, but the extra movement is still "noticeable in the context of this lightly developed rural location" (DL ¶14).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | confined parcel well beyond any large built-up area; purpose (c) irrelevant to grey belt; relevant question on (a) is a "strong" contribution to restricting sprawl of a large built-up area; Annex E guidance applied (DL 7-10) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | 1-3 dwellings would not fundamentally undermine purposes across the plan area (DL 20) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | no five-year supply = unmet need (figure not stated) (DL 20) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | fail | 60 mph narrow hedged lane used by agricultural traffic, no footway between site and pedestrian network; some street lighting does not overcome this (DL 12-16, 19) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iv) | not-engaged | not major (DL 20) | |
| TR3 | fail | no "genuine choice of transport modes"; would not improve walking/wheeling connectivity (DL 16) | |
| S5(1)(e) | fail | loose-knit pattern, not a continuous frontage; infilling status would not decide sustainability anyway (DL 18) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | inappropriate development plus localised spatial and visual openness harm (DL 21-24) |
| S5(5) | not-engaged | S5(5) balance applies only to development that is not inappropriate (DL 28) | |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | 1-3 dwellings, no certainty of 3 (DL 25) |
Key facts
- Plex Lane is narrow, hedge-bounded, 60 mph, used by agricultural vehicles; some street lighting; no footway by the site
- Nearby Holly Farm scheme was permitted with a secured footway link to Southport Road; this scheme offered none
- Distance to the pedestrian network "relatively short", but pedestrians must walk in the carriageway
- Appellant also relied on S5(1)(e) infilling
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.