# Annexe at 8 Longridge Road, Hurst Green

- **Decision:** allowed, 22 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Rafiq
- **Authority:** Ribble Valley (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009357
- **Application reference:** 3/2026/0146
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of annexe to a separate dwelling
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Housing land supply (years):** 2.24
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4, HO7, TR3
- **Development plan policies:** Ribble Valley Core Strategy 2008-2028 DMG2, DMI2
- **Main issues:** suitable location, access to services
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, sustainable-location-pass, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, conservation-area

## Summary
Conversion of a detached annexe to a separate dwelling in Hurst Green, a Tier 2 village in Ribble Valley, was allowed. The scheme conflicted with the Core Strategy's village policy (DMG2). But it was inside a village with walkable facilities and an hourly bus, and the council had only a 2.24-year supply. Under S4 the plan conflict did not "substantially outweigh" the benefits.

## Issues and findings
- **Location: PASS (TR3/CC2).** Hurst Green has a primary school, pub, café and village hall but no shop. The bus "operates an hourly service Monday to Saturday which is when most journeys, such as those to and from work, education or shopping are likely to be undertaken" (DL ¶6). "the highway outside the appeal site has a footway and street lighting that provide convenient pedestrian access to the village's facilities … I do not consider there would be a heavy reliance on the private car" (DL ¶7).
- **Housing supply.** "It is common ground that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply … 2.24 years … Although the proposal would deliver a single dwelling, this provision would be in an area where there is a significant shortage" (DL ¶14).
- The Framework was simply "considered". The letter records no separate consultation (DL ¶2).

## Planning balance
S4 was applied because the site is within the village (DL ¶13). "the adverse effects arising from conflict with the development plan's strategy to direct new housing development to certain defined locations, would not substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶16).

## What made the difference
The site was inside a village, so S4 applied rather than S5. A footway and lighting ran to the local facilities, an hourly weekday bus was available, and supply was 2.24 years. Conflict with a settlement-hierarchy policy is not, on its own, an "adverse effect" of the kind that substantially outweighs a home.

## Transferable points
- In a lower-tier village with a footway, lighting, a school, pub and hourly Mon-Sat bus, a missing shop does not make a site unsustainable (DL ¶6-7).
- Weekday-only hourly buses are enough because "most journeys … are likely to be undertaken" Mon-Sat (DL ¶6).
- A breach of the plan's settlement hierarchy alone does not "substantially outweigh" housing benefits under S4 where supply is 2.24 years (DL ¶16).
- HO7 substantial weight was applied to a single dwelling in a shortfall area (DL ¶14).

## Policy findings
- **TR3: pass.** footway and street lighting to village facilities (school, pub, cafe, village hall); no shop/post office but hourly bus Mon-Sat; not heavily car reliant (DL 6-8)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 2.24-year supply, significant shortage; one dwelling still attracts HO7 support (DL 14)
- **S4: pass.** conflict with DMG2 Tier 2 village strategy does not substantially outweigh benefits (DL 13-16)

## Key facts
- Tier 2 village in the Core Strategy hierarchy; DMG2 criteria not met
- Council supply 2.24 years (common ground)
- Hourly bus Monday-Saturday, reduced Sunday, no late service; footway and lighting outside site

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009357
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3745115b-afc8-4f72-b80e-777ceda5c779

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009357.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.