80 homes at Land to east of Salesbury View, Wilpshire

The site and its setting

The greenfield site is an allocated housing area on a steep hillside, bounded by homes, fields, woodland, a footpath, pylons and overhead lines.

“The application relates to a greenfield area of land approximately 4.98 hectares in size which is currently open field and grazing land of an irregular shape. The site is located in Wilpshire and the extent of the area to be developed is an allocated housing site within the settlement boundary.”

“There are existing electricity pylons and overhead lines that cross the site from East-West to the Southern part of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier proposal for 84 homes was refused and dismissed on appeal, while a 99-home proposal was withdrawn.

“3/2023/0614: Proposed erection of new residential development comprising 84 new homes, including 30% affordable housing, open spaces and associated infrastructure - Refused – Appeal Lodged and Dismissed.”

“3/2022/0115: Proposed erection of new residential development comprising 99 new homes, including 30% affordable housing, open spaces and associated infrastructure – Withdrawn.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval after concluding that the principle, highway safety, drainage, amenity, design, landscape and ecology were acceptable subject to conditions and a legal agreement.

“For the reasons outlined above the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of principle, impact on highway safety and parking, drainage, residential amenity, layout, design and materials, landscape, trees and ecology.”

“As such the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions and the completion of a section 106 agreement.”

Officer report

What people objected to

More than 160 objections cited landscape, access, traffic, flooding, drainage, ecology, infrastructure, amenity, construction and housing-need concerns.

“Dangerous topography – steep slope • Environmental risks from mineral deposits • Overburdened infrastructure • Out of character • Overburdening of local amenities • Disruption of natural habitats • Inadequate flood risk mitigation • Loss of privacy • Loss of light • Loss of views • Negative impact on trees • Potential use of hazardous materials • Restricted road access • Safety concerns – air pollution, overcrowding, increased accidents due to increased traffic •…”

“Does not demonstrate a measurable net gain for biodiversity • Increased light pollution • Doubt over transport consultant’s report – do not relate to current traffic in 2023-2028. Surveys taken during pandemic • No additional housing need in Wilpshire • House mix not aligned with local needs • Climate change and air quality • Provision for schools • Multiple years of proposed construction work would have an adverse effect on local residents in terms of noise and emissions…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A private speaker spoke against the application, and Councillor S Hirst was permitted to speak against it.

What members considered

Members were minded to refuse because of adverse visual effects and severe highway impacts, particularly for inclusivity and accessibility.

“At the Planning and Development Committee of the 23rd July 2026, Committee were minded to refuse the granting of planning permission for the proposed development on the basis that the proposal would result in adverse impacts upon the visual amenities of the area and lead to severe impacts on highway safety in particular in relation to inclusivity and accessibility for all.”

“The proposed development would be on a prominent hillside location at the edge of a settlement and adjacent to Green Belt. The proposed development fails to be visually attractive and sympathetic to the area's character by virtue of the layout, density, house types and scales, inadequate green buffers and significant level changes to the landform, appearing overly dominant and incongruous in the street scene and from wider public viewpoints to the detriment of visual…”

Officer report

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission because the development was visually dominant and incongruous and did not provide suitable access for all users.

“The proposed development would fail to provide suitable access routes, to and from the site as well as within it, for all users, in particular those people with disabilities and reduced mobility, by virtue of the topography of the site and steep incline up Salesbury View. This would be contrary to Policies DMG1 and DMG3 of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy 2008 – 2028 and Policies HO9, TR3 and TR4 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes