# Gravel Farm, 250 Gravel Lane, Banks - **Decision:** allowed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gravett - **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6011231 - **Application reference:** 2026/0042/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of Barn A to a dwelling (self-build) and Barn B to an ancillary garage - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(5), HO7, L2(1), HO11, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 SP1, GN1, GN3, RS1 - **Main issues:** suitable location for housing - **Tags:** s5-5-balance, substantially-outweighed, not-inappropriate, conversion, self-build, car-dependence-moderate, isolated-home-not, l2-substantial-weight, costs-award, bng-self-build-exemption, old-framework-para-cited ## Summary Conversion of two former agricultural barns in a small roadside group in the West Lancashire Green Belt into one self-build dwelling and a garage. Allowed. The Council accepted the scheme was not inappropriate, citing the 2024 para 154 exceptions. The only harm was car reliance for daily needs, and under S5(5) that did not substantially outweigh the substantial weight given to housing (HO7) and to reusing buildings (L2(1)). The Council paid partial costs for failing to disclose the appeal decisions it had relied on. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework is "a material consideration of critical importance which should be taken into account from the day of publication"; the parties commented (DL ¶4). - **Green Belt.** The Council's finding under "paragraph 154 of the 2024 version" was accepted: "the proposal would not be inappropriate development" (DL ¶6). This maps to GB7(1)(b) reuse. The letter does not re-test the scheme under the 2026 wording. - **HO11 / S5(3): not isolated.** It forms part of a small group of dwellings, and "the pavement is nonetheless continuous, mainly flat … The proposed new dwelling would not therefore be remote" (DL ¶9-10). - **Accessibility.** "the pavements are well-lit and wide enough to ensure safe and comfortable movement for most pedestrians to both bus stops" (DL ¶12). But "future occupiers … would be largely reliant on the private car to meet their day-to-day needs" (DL ¶14). No conflict with TR3's rural-opportunities limb (DL ¶31). ## Planning balance S5(5): "in locations outside settlements, where development would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt … proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶29). HO7 and L2(1) each carried substantial weight. "these benefits would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effect identified" (DL ¶32). Material considerations outweighed the development plan conflict (DL ¶33). ## What made the difference Two things. The Council conceded that the scheme was not inappropriate, which moved the case out of the VSC test and into the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance. And the walk to Banks and the bus stops was on lit, continuous pavement, so car reliance counted only as a moderate harm. Compare Branford Wells (PINS-6010313), where there was no footway and no lighting. ## Transferable points - Where Green Belt development is not inappropriate and outside a settlement, S5(5) applies the "substantially outweighed" test (DL ¶29). - L2(1) requires substantial weight to reusing vacant or underused buildings (DL ¶32). - A dwelling in a small roadside group about 1 km from a village, on continuous lit pavement, is not "isolated" under HO11/S5(3) (DL ¶9-10). - Lit, continuous pavements to bus stops count even where facilities are mostly reached by car (DL ¶12, 14). - A council that relies on unnamed appeal decisions and refuses to identify them risks a procedural costs award (costs DL ¶11-13). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** Council accepted an exception under 2024 NPPF para 154 (reuse of buildings); Inspector agreed without detailed reasoning (DL 6) - **HO11: not-engaged.** not isolated; part of a small group of dwellings ~1 km from Banks (Key Sustainable Village) via continuous, mainly flat, lit pavement (DL 7-10) - **TR3: harm.** bus every 2 hours nearby and half-hourly further away via lit pavements, but daily needs likely by car; conflict with LP SP1/GN3, no conflict with TR3(1)(e) (DL 11-15, 31) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** contribution to supply (DL 32) - **L2(1): benefit (substantial weight).** reuse of vacant, underused former agricultural buildings (DL 32) - **S5(5): pass.** not inappropriate in the GB outside settlements → approve unless substantially outweighed; locational harm did not substantially outweigh (DL 29-33) ## Key facts - Two former agricultural barns behind an existing dwelling in a small roadside group on Gravel Lane - About 1 km to Banks via continuous, flat, lit pavement; nearby bus every 2 hours (Mon-Sat); half-hourly service at Guinea Hall Lane - Self-build secured by UU, giving the BNG exemption - Partial costs award against the Council for failing to disclose the appeal decisions it relied on ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011231 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d829f11b-17ec-4bb3-8e43-bed78152afb1 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d993afbc-8fc3-457b-92bb-83f6a5188520 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011231.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.