# Homestead, Liverpool Road, Tarleton

- **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gravett
- **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009486
- **Application reference:** 2026/0109/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of 4-bed dwelling to a children's care home for up to 2 children (C2)
- **Site context:** open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S3, HO9(1), HO7
- **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 GN3
- **Main issues:** suitability of location - need, local services, community balance
- **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, specialist-housing, childrens-home, plan-making-policy-not-for-decisions, substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Change of use of a countryside house near Tarleton to a two-child children's home was allowed. The inspector found some harm: pressure on over-stretched Lancashire services (HO9, plan policy GN3). But the scheme fell within S5(1)(c) as the reuse of an existing building, so the "substantially outweighed" test applied, and a modest harm limited to two children did not meet it. The inspector expressly departed from a December 2024-era decision (Briars Green) that had relied on need/mix policies now found only in plan-making policy HO1.

## Issues and findings
- **S5(1)(c) applies to any existing building.** "The proposal falls within the list at policy S5(1)(c) which is the reuse of an existing building provided that the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction and is lawful in planning terms. Policy S5(1)(c) does not only relate to rural agricultural buildings" (DL ¶24).
- **Services (HO9(1)): CONFLICT.** The "proposal would contribute to the detrimental effects on local education, health and police services … However, these detrimental effects would be tempered by the placing of only two supervised children" (DL ¶15).
- **Need is not a decision-making test.** "Although policy HO1(2) of the Framework has a similar objective, this is a plan-making policy, and paragraph 8 of the Framework is clear that such policies should not be used when making decisions" (DL ¶18). HO7 "does not impose a ceiling on housing provision or require individual planning applications to demonstrate a need for the sort of housing proposed" (DL ¶26).

## Planning balance
s38(6), with the Framework "a material consideration of critical importance" (DL ¶24). S5(1)(c) put the scheme in the "approve unless substantially outweighed" test. The only adverse effect was service pressure, tempered by scale: "I do not find that the adverse effects arising from the proposal would be so significant that they would substantially outweigh the benefits. In the context of policy S5 … the presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore applies" (DL ¶27). This outweighed the conflict with plan policy GN3 (DL ¶28).

## What made the difference
The move from the December 2024 NPPF to the August 2026 NPPF. Under the old Framework, need and community-mix concerns could be run against a scheme in decisions (Briars Green). Under the new one they sit in plan-making HO1, and S5(1)(c) gives any reuse of a lawful building outside a settlement a strong presumption. A proven but modest service-pressure harm could not clear the "substantially outweighed" bar.

## Transferable points
- S5(1)(c) covers reuse of any lawful, permanent building, including a dwelling changed to C2, not just rural or agricultural buildings (DL ¶24).
- Plan-making policies (e.g. HO1(2)) cannot be used to refuse a proposal (DL ¶18).
- HO7 does not require individual schemes to show need for their housing type, and absence of need is not a conflict (DL ¶26).
- Proven HO9 harm can still fall short of "substantially outweighed" when limited by scale and condition (DL ¶25-27).
- Pre-August 2026 appeal decisions that relied on superseded NPPF paragraphs are distinguishable (DL ¶18).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(c): pass.** reuse of an existing lawful, permanent building; (c) "does not only relate to rural agricultural buildings" (DL 24)
- **HO9(1): conflict.** strain on Lancashire education, CAMHS and police services from saturation of children's homes; management plan not sufficient (HO9(1)(b)); tempered by only two children (DL 8-15, 25)
- **HO7: neutral.** absence of local need is not a conflict - HO7 imposes no ceiling and does not require need to be shown (DL 26)
- **HO1(2): not-engaged.** plan-making policy; not used for decisions (Framework para 8) - departing from Briars Green appeal decided under Dec 2024 NPPF (DL 18)
- **S5(1): pass.** adverse effects not so significant as to substantially outweigh benefits; presumption applies (DL 27)

## Key facts
- Lancashire market position statement - county saturated with children's homes; only 14% of beds used by Lancashire children
- Isolated property outside a settlement with no immediate neighbours; condition limits to two children
- Earlier contrary decisions - Warren Drive, Blackpool (APP/J2373/C/23/3325930) and Briars Green, Skelmersdale (APP/P2365/W/25/3361672)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009486
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/11d21316-cc57-4bb5-ae40-f8a219a080eb

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009486.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.