- Decision
- dismissed, 24 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer Ellie Nutman)
- Authority
- Ribble Valley (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6009691
- Application reference
- 3/2026/0159
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for up to 3 self-build dwellings including 1 bungalow for over-55s on a smallholding
- Homes
- 3
- Site context
- national landscape, open countryside, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- N4, S5, CC2
- Development plan policies
- Ribble Valley Core Strategy 2014 DS1, DMI2, DMG1, DMG2, DMG3, DMH3
- Main issues
- suitability of location; land use and amount (PIP)
Summary
Permission in principle for up to three self-build homes on a smallholding outside Hurst Green, in the Forest of Bowland National Landscape, was dismissed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The site's access to the village and bus is by an unlit lane with no footway, so it was not well related to the settlement. The houses and curtilages would urbanise an unspoilt landscape. Self-build and over-55 need were unevidenced and unsecured, so the benefits carried limited weight.
Issues and findings
- Transition. No switch paragraph; the 2026 policies (N4, S5, DP3, CC2) are applied.
- Accessibility: FAIL. "the road is unlit and lacks any segregated footpaths which would provide an unattractive option for accessing the services and facilities within the village by all users" (DL ¶10). "Therefore, the site would not be physically well-related to the existing settlement and sustainable modes of transport would not be reasonably available for future occupiers" (DL ¶10).
- National Landscape, N4: FAIL. "the scheme would cause unacceptable harm to the special qualities of the NL" (DL ¶12).
- Not infill; not PDL; fallback very limited (DL ¶14, ¶16–17).
- Benefits: LIMITED. Self-build and over-55 provision: "I do not have a sufficiently compelling amount of evidence before me pertaining to an evidenced need in each regard. In any case, neither of these matters are secured via a completed planning obligation or otherwise" (DL ¶19).
Planning balance
S5, framed by the lack of a five-year supply: "The Council is unable to demonstrate the supply of housing sites required by the Framework. With this and the appeal site's location in mind, Policy S5 of the Framework explains that a planning permission should be granted, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶18). That is 2024 tilted-balance thinking; S5 does not turn on supply, and no S5(1) category is named. Harms given significant weight (DL ¶21); "the benefits of granting a planning permission for the proposed development would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶22).
What made the difference
The unlit, unpaved lane to Hurst Green and its bus stop, and the unspoilt National Landscape setting. Evidence of self-build and older-person need, secured by obligation, would have added weight, but could not overcome the landscape harm.
Transferable points
- An unlit lane with no segregated footway is "an unattractive option … by all users", so the site is not physically well related and sustainable modes are not reasonably available (DL ¶10).
- A bus stop in the village does not help if reaching it requires the same unlit walk (DL ¶10).
- Self-build and over-55 benefits need evidenced need and a securing mechanism before they attract weight (DL ¶19).
- A smallholding with an agricultural shed is not PDL (DL ¶16).
- Caution: DL ¶18 ties S5 to the supply position; cite for the location findings, not the balance structure.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| N4 | fail | significant | three curtilages, access and outbuildings would urbanise high-quality unspoilt rolling landscape in the Forest of Bowland National Landscape; statutory "seek to further" duty; no LVIA (DL 11-12, 21) |
| TR3 | fail | mapped (TR3 not named; CC2 cited) - services in Hurst Green within walking distance but road unlit with no segregated footway, unattractive "by all users"; bus route 5 to Clitheroe also needs the unlit walk (DL 10, 21) | |
| S5(1)(j)(i) | fail | letter finds site "would not be physically well-related to the existing settlement" on access grounds, without naming a category; evidenced need not shown (DL 10, 19) | |
| S5(1)(e) | fail | not infill - adjoins a dwelling on one side and fields on the other (DL 14) | |
| AnnexB:PDL | fail | occupied by an agricultural shed, so excluded from PDL (DL 16) | |
| DP3 | harm | significant | DP3 "development should respond to its context" cited in the harm; no DP3(3) step (DL 21) |
| HO7 | benefit | limited | self-build and over-55 bungalow - substantial weight in principle but need unevidenced and nothing secured; benefits limited (DL 19-20) |
| S5 | fail | benefits substantially outweighed; S5 introduced by reference to lack of 5-year supply; no S5(1) category or S5(4) route identified (DL 18, 22) | |
| GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q fallback | neutral | very-limited | no prior approval scheme before the inspector (DL 17) |
Key facts
- Hurst Green is a Tier 2 settlement; the site is outside it (DL 9)
- Shire Lane junction with 40 mph Longridge Road has substandard splays; appellant owns land to widen; not pursued (DL 4-5)
- Council cannot show a 5-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 18)
- Appeal 3372635 (site adjoining a settlement boundary) distinguished (DL 15)
- Letter has no Framework switch paragraph
Sources
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.