# Land to the rear of 137 Station Road, Hesketh Bank (PIP, up to 4 homes)

- **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Brook
- **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007730
- **Application reference:** 2025/0778/PIP
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Permission in principle for up to 4 dwellings on 0.14 ha comprising the driveway and front lawn of a semi-detached house and a two-storey brick building and yard to the rear
- **Homes:** 4
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(1), S4(2)(a)(ii), L2(1)(d), L3
- **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD (2013) RS1, GN1, GN3, West Lancashire Design Guide SPD 2008
- **Main issues:** whether the site is suitable for the amount of development proposed
- **Tags:** PIP, s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, l2-1-d-curtilage, garden-infill, small-scheme, drafting-slip, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Permission in principle for up to four homes on 0.14 ha beside and behind a house in Hesketh Bank was allowed. The Council accepted housing in principle but said four was too many. The inspector found that plot sizes nearby vary, that L3 supports higher density, and that a scheme of up to four could be designed at the next stage. Under S4 the inspector checked the L2(1)(d) residential-curtilage circumstance and found no substantial adverse impact, even though the host house was unlikely to keep half of its undeveloped curtilage.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "Both parties have had an opportunity to comment on the revised Framework and so have not been prejudiced by this change" (DL ¶6).
- **Density, L3.** "Framework policy L3 supports residential development which contributes to an increase in the density of the area in which it is situated" (DL ¶9).
- **Character, DP3.** "I am not persuaded that a scheme for up to 4 dwellings could not be designed so as to respond appropriately to this context, as required by Framework policy DP3, without appearing overly cramped or intensive" (DL ¶10).
- **Garden depth guidance.** "this other proposal and the SPD do not lead me to conclude that the amount of development proposed is unachievable" (DL ¶13).
- **L2(1)(d) and S4(2)(a)(ii).** "While No 137 would be unlikely to retain at least 50% of the non-developed area … within its curtilage, for the aforementioned reasons, this would not necessarily be harmful to the overall character of the area, subject to the detailed design" (DL ¶17; the break is a page footnote). "At this stage therefore, I have no reason to consider that there would be a substantial adverse impact in the context of Framework policy L2(1)(d)" (DL ¶17).

## Planning balance
S4(1), reached through S3. "As the proposal accords with the development plan and I have not identified any conflict with the decision-making policies within the Framework, policies S3 and S4 of the Framework indicate that the proposal should be approved" (DL ¶18). No benefits are weighed, and housing supply is not considered.

## What made the difference
The stage of the process and the varied grain of the area. With no layout to assess, the Council's case rested on a general view that four homes would be cramped and on a 10 m garden guideline. The inspector treated both as matters for technical details consent. The L2(1)(d) half-curtilage measure was probably not met, but the policy's own proviso, that more development can be accepted where it does not harm the overall character of the area, answered it.

## Transferable points
- Failing the L2(1)(d)(iii) measure of keeping 50% of the undeveloped curtilage is not in itself a "substantial adverse impact" under S4(2)(a)(ii); the proviso on harm to the overall character of the area is applied first (DL ¶16-17).
- Where a site is only partly residential curtilage, L2(1)(d) was applied loosely and its full assessment left to the technical details stage (DL ¶17).
- L3 was used positively at permission-in-principle stage: existing character does not preclude a density that makes the most of a site inside a settlement (DL ¶9-10).
- A garden-depth figure in a design guide that is expressed as guidance on overlooking does not cap the number of homes at permission-in-principle stage (DL ¶13).

## Policy findings
- **S3: pass.** S3 applied; S4 governs within settlements; S3(1)(c) set out (accord with an up-to-date plan and the Framework, approve without delay) (DL 15, 18)
- **S4(1): pass.** accords with the development plan; no conflict with the Framework's decision-making policies; S3 and S4 indicate approval (DL 17-18)
- **S4(2)(a)(ii): not-engaged.** no reason to find a substantial adverse impact in relation to L2(1)(d), so not a circumstance in which benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (DL 16-17)
- **L2(1)(d): pass.** site is not all residential curtilage; unlikely to exceed twice the footprint of existing buildings; No 137 "would be unlikely to retain at least 50% of the non-developed area … within its curtilage" (the break is a page footnote), but that would not necessarily harm the overall character of the area, subject to detailed design; full assessment left to technical details stage (DL 17)
- **L3: pass.** 4 homes on 0.14 ha approaches 30 dwellings per hectare, the Local Plan RS1 minimum; L3 supports increased density, and existing character "should not preclude development which makes the most of an area's potential" (DL 9-10)
- **DP3: accord.** varied plot sizes nearby; not persuaded that up to 4 dwellings could not respond appropriately to context without appearing cramped (DL 10-11)
- **HO11: not-engaged.** not isolated homes; the Council's costs rebuttal had cited paragraph 84 of the former Framework; the letter writes "H011" (DL 22)

## Key facts
- The Council and appellant agreed residential use here is acceptable in principle; the dispute was the amount of development (DL 7)
- Only a maximum (4) was given, with no minimum and no indicative drawings (DL 5)
- The Council relied on a 10 m garden depth from its Design Guide SPD; the inspector noted that figure concerns overlooking and is guidance only (DL 13)
- Housing land supply not considered, given the findings on the main issue (DL 20)
- The parish council said the site was in the Green Belt; no evidence, and not the Council's case (DL 21)
- Costs application by the appellant against the Council is the subject of a separate decision; outcome not stated in this letter (DL 2)
- No site visit date is given in the header; a visit is referred to at DL 10

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007730

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007730.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.