Happy Hounds Hotel, Back Lane, Weeton (PIP, up to 2 dwellings on kennels site)

Decision

allowed, 1 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: R Walker

Authority

Fylde (North West)

Appeal reference

6012202

Application reference

26/0063

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for demolition of dog day care and boarding kennel buildings and erection of up to 2 dwellings

Homes

2

Site context

open countryside, PDL, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(d), S5(1), Transitional(2), HO7

Development plan policies

Fylde Local Plan S1, DLF1, GD4, INF1, ENV3

Main issues

suitability of location; spatial strategy; access to services

Summary

Permission in principle for up to two dwellings replacing kennel buildings in the countryside near Weeton was allowed. The scheme conflicted with the local plan's countryside policy and future occupiers would rely heavily on cars. But the site is previously developed land, so S5(1)(d) applied, and the inspector held that (d) does not require a site to be well-related to a settlement. The local countryside policy, which has no equivalent provision, was given very limited weight. Housing had substantial weight, undiminished by the small scale, and the moderate transport harm did not substantially outweigh it.

Issues and findings

• Transition. No switch paragraph. The letter cites the "National Planning Policy Framework 2026" and its policy codes (DL ¶13).
• Location and access, TR3: HARM (moderate). "There is no continuous lit footpath to Weeton or the nearest bus stop." (DL ¶10). "future occupiers would have a heavy reliance on private vehicles to access services and facilities" but "driving distances would be short to both Weeton and the larger settlement of Wesham, moderating the extent of harm" (DL ¶11).
• Plan weight (Annex A ¶2): CUT. "Policy GD4 of the Local Plan is more restrictive than the criteria in Policy S5 of the Framework and does not have similar provisions relating to the development of previously developed land (PDL) outside of settlements. As such, I give Policy GD4, and by connection Policy S1 in relation to this matter, very limited weight." (DL ¶13).
• S5(1)(d): PASS. "Criterion d) of Policy S5 does not require that proposals for the redevelopment of PDL are physically well-related to a settlement, as that requirement only appears within criterions h) and j), with no indication that it is to be applied to the other forms of development listed." (DL ¶15).
• Housing, HO7: substantial. "The modest scale of the development does not diminish the weight I give these benefits." (DL ¶16).
• Weight of the transport harm. "the adverse effects in terms of accessibility to services and facilities and in seeking to guide development towards sustainable locations carry no more than moderate weight" (DL ¶19).

Planning balance

S5(1) with the S5(2) check: "There are no relevant national decision-making policies which indicate that the proposal should be specifically refused. As such, when considered collectively, the benefits of the development would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects." (DL ¶20). Substantial weight to two homes; moderate weight to the TR3 conflict; limited weight to the loss of the business. Then section 38(6): "The proposed development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations, namely the provisions of the Framework, indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it." (DL ¶23).

What made the difference

The site's status as previously developed land. That opened S5(1)(d), cut the weight of the countryside policy that would otherwise have barred the scheme, and led the inspector to hold the transport harm to moderate weight because the Framework supports the location in principle. The existing business's own traffic also reduced the net effect. On a greenfield site the same route and distances would have been tested under S5(4).

Transferable points

• S5(1)(d) has no "well-related to a settlement" test; that requirement appears only in (h) and (j) (DL ¶15).
• A local countryside policy with no provision for redeveloping previously developed land outside settlements is more restrictive than S5 and gets very limited weight under Annex A ¶2; transport policies in line with TR3 keep their weight (DL ¶13).
• A TR3 conflict is weighed in the S5(1) balance and was not treated as a refusal policy; where S5 supports the location in principle the inspector held it to moderate weight (DL ¶18-20).
• Trips generated by the existing use of previously developed land moderate the transport harm of its redevelopment (DL ¶11).
• HO7 substantial weight was given in full to two homes at permission in principle stage, where the council has a shortfall (DL ¶16).
• Appeal decisions made under the previous Framework can be distinguished on that ground alone (DL ¶21).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Site holds the buildings of an operating dog day care and boarding kennels business, outside any settlement development limit (DL 5)
• Sporadic houses along the lane and a gypsy and traveller site opposite; the inspector thought "countryside" not a particularly apt description (DL 6)
• Weeton is a Tier 2 Smaller Rural Settlement in the local plan's settlement hierarchy, with few services and limited transport connections (DL 9)
• No continuous lit footway to Weeton or the nearest bus stop; distances not stated (DL 10)
• Footpath improvements suggested but not before the inspector at permission in principle stage (DL 10)
• Loss of the operating business given limited weight, as the owners intend to retire (DL 17, 19)
• Council has a housing supply shortfall; the figure is not stated (DL 16)
• Earlier appeal decisions cited by both parties distinguished because none was decided under the revised Framework (DL 21)
• No switch paragraph; the letter cites the "National Planning Policy Framework 2026" (DL 13)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.