# Land south of Park Farm, Whalley, Wiswell

- **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on the recommendation of appeal planning officer Ellie Nutman)
- **Authority:** Ribble Valley (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009990
- **Application reference:** 3/2026/0190
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Permission in principle for one self-build dwelling replacing an agricultural barn
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S5(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Ribble Valley Core Strategy 2014 Key Statement DS1, DMG1, DMG2, DMG3, DMH3, DMI2
- **Main issues:** suitability of site for residential development
- **Tags:** PIP, appeal-planning-officer, s5-1-j, sustainable-location-fail, self-build-unsecured, class-q-fallback, infill-rejected, small-scheme, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
Permission in principle for a self-build house replacing a barn in open countryside near Whalley, reached from a 70 mph dual carriageway with no footways. Dismissed on the recommendation of an appeal planning officer: the site is not physically well related to Barrow under S5(1)(j)(i) because of its poor accessibility, and future occupiers would be heavily car reliant.

## Issues and findings
- **Accessibility: FAIL.** "Access to the site is via the dual carriageway, which has no formal footpaths and is subject to a 70 mph speed limit" (DL ¶6). "Accessing Clitheroe Golf Club bus stop would require walking alongside and crossing the dual carriageway, which would not be safe for all users" (DL ¶6).
- **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "Barrow is not a significant distance to the south of the appeal site, but given my findings on its accessibility in regard thereto, I would not consider it to be physically well related" (DL ¶15).
- **Character: HARM** from new access and domestic curtilage (DL ¶8).
- **Fallback.** Class Q not yet applied for; "limited weight as a fallback position" (DL ¶11).

## Planning balance
S5(1): significant weight to travel and character harms against limited benefits. "the benefits of granting planning permission for the appeal scheme would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶17).

## What made the difference
The dual carriageway. There was no safe walking route to anything, including the nearest bus stop.

## Transferable points
- S5(1)(j)(i) "physically well related" read through accessibility: a settlement a short distance away is not well related if the only route is an unsafe dual carriageway (DL ¶15).
- Walking alongside and crossing a 70 mph dual carriageway to reach a bus stop is not a safe alternative "for all users" (DL ¶6).
- A Class Q fallback not yet applied for carries limited weight (DL ¶11).
- Appeal planning officer letter: lower authority than an inspector's own reasoning.

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** unmet need accepted in principle; Barrow "not a significant distance" but not physically well related given poor accessibility (accessibility reading of (j)(i)) (DL 15)
- **TR3: harm (significant weight).** access via 70 mph dual carriageway with no footways; bus stop requires walking alongside and crossing it; heavy car reliance (DL 6, 16); TR3 not named, harm framed as conflict with policies "geared around reducing the need to travel"
- **DP3(1): harm (significant weight).** new access, driveway and garden urbanise open agricultural fields (DL 8, 16); DP3(3) not invoked
- **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one home, very limited contribution; self-build unsecured; benefits collectively limited (DL 15-16)
- **S5(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 17)

## Key facts
- Appeal planning officer recommendation adopted by inspector (DL 2, 19)
- Access from dual carriageway with 70 mph limit and no formal footpaths (DL 6)
- Class Q fallback for the barn not yet applied for; limited weight (DL 11)
- [object Object]
- No switch paragraph; Framework applied by 2026 codes (DL 14-17)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009990
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f1684f5d-c7c9-4330-8471-f589f8dbd2b4

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009990.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.