Summary
Permission in principle for 6 to 9 homes at a farm on the edge of Tarleton, in the West Lancashire Green Belt. Grey belt was accepted because a village cannot be a large built-up area, and unmet need was shown by a 1.86-year supply. The sustainable-location limb passed on a brief statement relying on the 2024 idea that sustainable transport opportunities vary between urban and rural areas. The only harm was a possible small loss of best and most versatile land. Allowed.
The location finding
- GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass. passed on a general statement of footway, services, buses and cycling with no distances, route or frequency facts; 2024 wording that sustainable transport opportunities vary between urban and rural areas; car reliance not unusual in a rural context (DL 13-15)
- TR3: pass. see GB7(1)(g)(iii); TR3(1)(a) paraphrased but the operative reasoning is the 2024 rural-variation phrase (DL 13-15)
Route facts recorded
- No walking distances, route description, lighting, speed or bus frequency given in the letter; footway provision asserted (DL 14)
What made the difference
Grey belt followed from Tarleton being a village, and need from the 1.86-year supply. The location limb was passed on assertion rather than tested route evidence. The letter records no walking distances, route conditions, lighting or bus frequencies, and treats rural car reliance as acceptable in its own right.
A summary of a public appeal decision from the research dataset behind this page, written from the decision letter. Quotations are checked against the letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Text, data and images on this page are released under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence: share and adapt them freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.