# Land to the rear of Abbey Gardens, Southport Road, Lydiate - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Lancaster - **Authority:** Sefton (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008723 - **Application reference:** DC/2025/02052 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to 4 bungalows on former pig and poultry farm land behind a scheme under construction - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt rejected) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** AnnexB:grey-belt, GB7(1)(g), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Sefton Local Plan 2017 MN7 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development in the Green Belt, openness, very special circumstances - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-rejected, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, pdl-blended-into-landscape, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, tier-2 ## Summary Permission in principle for up to four bungalows on open former farmland at the edge of Lydiate was refused on appeal. The key finding was that Lydiate and Maghull form a single large built-up area, so the site strongly contributes to Green Belt purpose (a) and is not grey belt. The scheme was inappropriate development, harmed openness, and its moderate benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments. My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Village or large built-up area?** "Whilst Lydiate may have originated as a distinct village, the evidence before me indicates that development has resulted in a continuous urban form with Maghull. Having regard to the way in which the Local Plan identifies and treats the settlements, I find that Lydiate forms part of the same large built-up area as Maghull" (DL ¶14). - **Grey belt: FAIL on purpose (a).** "If developed, the proposal would project the settlement edge further into the Green Belt, creating an extended finger of development beyond the established and emerging built form" (DL ¶18). "because I have found that the appeal site makes a strong contribution to Green Belt purpose (a), it does not meet the Framework's definition of Grey Belt land" (DL ¶20). - **Not PDL.** Former farm buildings removed and remnants "have mostly blended into the landscape" (DL ¶6); former use given very limited weight (DL ¶27). - **Openness: HARM** (DL ¶24). - **Benefits: MODERATE.** Four homes without a five-year supply, small site, "good accessibility to services, facilities and public transport, including bus services operating along Southport Road" (DL ¶26). - **S5(5).** "as I have found that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, Policy S5(5) provides that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply" (DL ¶33). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to inappropriateness and openness harm; moderate weight to the housing and related benefits. "the other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm" (DL ¶31). ## What made the difference Whether Lydiate is a village. Because the Local Plan treats Maghull and Lydiate as one large town and the built form is continuous, the rule that "villages should not be regarded as large built-up areas" (DL ¶11) did not apply, and an uncontained site at the edge became a strong purpose (a) contributor. Had Lydiate been found a separate village, the site would probably have been grey belt, and its good bus access would have helped on (g)(iii). ## Transferable points - A historically separate village that has merged physically with a town, and is treated with it as one settlement in the Local Plan, can be part of a "large built-up area" for purpose (a), despite its own parish council and neighbourhood plan (DL ¶12–14). - Annex E(3) "extended finger" reasoning: an open, uncontained site that projects beyond the settlement edge strongly contributes to purpose (a) (DL ¶15–18). - Adjoining development under construction does not make the next field acceptable (DL ¶28). - Former agricultural buildings that have gone, leaving remnants that have blended into the landscape, do not make a site PDL (DL ¶7, ¶27). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: fail.** strong contribution to purpose (a) - Lydiate forms one large built-up area with Maghull (Local Plan treats them as one large town; continuous urban form); site open, uncontained, would be an "extended finger" per Annex E(3) (DL 11-20) - **GB2: not-engaged.** purposes (b) and (d) - no strong contribution (DL 19) - **GB7(1)(g): fail.** not grey belt, so (g) unavailable; (ii)-(iii) not reached (DL 20) - **AnnexB:PDL: fail.** former farm (agricultural) and remnants blended into the landscape; not PDL; former use very limited weight (DL 6-7, 27) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; visual and spatial openness harm; VSC not shown (DL 21-25, 30-31) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** up to 4 homes, no 5YHLS, small site, good access to services and buses on Southport Road - moderate weight together (DL 26, 31) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** inappropriate GB development, so no presumption (DL 32-33) ## Key facts - Lydiate has its own Parish Council and Neighbourhood Plan, but the Local Plan treats Maghull and Lydiate as a single large town (DL 12) - Eccleston appeal (APP/D2320/W/25/3376087, a Rural Service Centre found a village) distinguished; very limited weight (DL 13) - Adjoining 5-bungalow scheme under construction (DC/2023/00249); acceptance of it does not justify further development (DL 6, 28) - Council cannot show a 5-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 26) - Letter refers to the "Local Plan for Sefton, adopted 2027" at DL 21 (typo for 2017) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008723 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008723.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.