Boltons Farm, Blackgate Lane, Tarleton

Decision

allowed, 23 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes

Authority

West Lancashire (North West)

Appeal reference

6007484

Application reference

2025/0981/PIP

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for 6 to 9 dwellings on a farmyard and land outside the Tarleton settlement boundary (Green Belt)

Homes

9

Site context

green belt, settlement edge, agricultural land BMV

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt accepted)

Housing land supply

1.86 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB7(1)(g), GB7(1)(g)(iii), S5(5)

Development plan policies

West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD 2013 GN3, EN2(4)

Main issues

grey belt and inappropriateness; flood risk; agricultural land; VSC if relevant

Summary

Permission in principle for 6 to 9 homes at a farm on the edge of Tarleton, in the West Lancashire Green Belt. Grey belt was accepted because a village cannot be a large built-up area, and unmet need was shown by a 1.86-year supply. The sustainable-location limb passed on a brief statement relying on the 2024 idea that sustainable transport opportunities vary between urban and rural areas. The only harm was a possible small loss of best and most versatile land. Allowed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the revised Framework, and their responses have been taken into account." (DL ¶2).
• Grey belt: PASS. "The Framework and associated guidance make clear that villages are not large built-up areas for the purposes of this objective." (DL ¶11). Supply: "it can currently demonstrate only a 1.86-year housing land supply" (DL ¶12).
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS (thin). The inspector said "the Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and that this should be taken into account in decision-making" (DL ¶13). This is 2024 wording; the 2026 TR3(1)(e) instead says that in rural areas opportunities to improve connectivity should be taken where they exist. The site "benefits from footway provision, access to services and facilities, and opportunities to travel by public transport" (DL ¶14), with no distances or service levels given. "Future occupants would be likely to rely upon the private car for a proportion of journeys. However, that is not unusual in a rural context and does not, in itself, render the location unsustainable." (DL ¶14). Conclusion: "recognising the rural context of the site, I am satisfied that it would be in a sustainable location for the purposes of Policy GB7(1)(g), having particular regard to Policy TR3" (DL ¶15).
• Openness/VSC. "there is no need for me to consider the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt or whether very special circumstances exist" (DL ¶17).
• Flood risk. Partial surface water flooding capable of being dealt with at the technical details stage (DL ¶20).
• BMV land, N2(1)(b). "I find that the resulting harm would be modest, and I attach limited weight to it" (DL ¶29).

Planning balance

After GB7(1)(g), an S5-type balance (S5(5) not named): substantial weight to up to 9 homes, "I attach substantial weight to this benefit" (DL ¶30), against limited BMV harm. "the benefits of the proposal would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effect arising from the potential loss of a limited area of agricultural land" (DL ¶31).

What made the difference

Grey belt followed from Tarleton being a village, and need from the 1.86-year supply. The location limb was passed on assertion rather than tested route evidence. The letter records no walking distances, route conditions, lighting or bus frequencies, and treats rural car reliance as acceptable in its own right.

Transferable points

• A village is not a "large built-up area" for purpose (a), so an edge-of-village field can be grey belt (DL ¶11).
• Weak-example caution: GB7(1)(g)(iii) passed without any route facts, using the 2024 urban/rural variation phrase and "not unusual in a rural context" car reliance (DL ¶13-15). Contrast route-tested dismissals such as Hatton Station PINS-6006637 and Halsall PINS-6007428 (also West Lancashire).
• Once GB7(1)(g) is met, openness and VSC fall away and the balance is S5-type, "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶17, ¶31).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Non-determination; Council would have refused on flood risk, BMV land, location and Green Belt (DL 6)
• No walking distances, route description, lighting, speed or bus frequency given in the letter; footway provision asserted (DL 14)
• Bat roost in an existing building deferred to TDC stage (DL 27)
• Natural England - no likely significant effect on Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA/Ramsar (DL 26)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.