Up to 9 homes at Land At Shelley Drive, Eccleston

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to nine dwellings and associated infrastructure.

“Proposal: Permission in principle application for the erection of up to 9 dwellings and associated infrastructure.”

Officer report

The site

The 0.49-hectare grassland site is accessed from Shelley Drive, borders homes and trees, and lies wholly within the Green Belt beside Eccleston.

“The application site is a rectangular area of grassland, accessed from the head of a cul- de-sac on Shelley Drive. The site is 0.49ha in size. The rear boundaries of properties along Keates Close border it to the south and it is surrounded be trees to the north and west. The land rises in this locality to the north. The site is adjacent to the defined settlement of Eccleston, but falls wholly within the Green Belt, as defined by the Chorley Local Plan Policies map.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because they considered the site grey belt, housing was needed, and the location was sustainable.

“The NPPG states that: “A Green Belt assessment should also consider the extent to which release or development of Green Belt land (including but not limited to grey belt land) would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area as whole.”

“The site constitutes grey belt, and the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the Green Belt. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed (housing) and the site is situated in a sustainable location for the purposes of the Framework (paragraph 155) The proposal is not, therefore, inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it meets the exception 155 of the Framework.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

United Utilities advised contact with its pre-development service, while the parish council objected to development in the Green Belt and countryside.

“United Utilities - recommend that the applicant contacts their pre-development enquiry service and request that the LPA forward to the applicant their advice letter.”

Officer report

Objections raised

Nineteen objection letters raised concerns including Green Belt harm, poor transport connections, wildlife, drainage, infrastructure, construction disruption and residential amenity.

“At the time of report preparation, 19no. letters of objection have been received raisin the following issues:”

“The applicant's argument that this land is grey belt is incorrect • The location is not sustainable as it sits on the periphery of the village and is poorly connected to existing infrastructure relying on private vehicles and would not promote sustainable transport patterns and settlement patterns • Nine dwellings would be intrusive and out of character • Would set a precedent for future green belt development • Site is located adjacent to an ancient woodland buffer and…”

Officer report

Public speakers

A ward councillor and the agent spoke during consideration of the application.

The vote

The committee voted to refuse permission in principle, with nine votes for, one against and one abstention.

“After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Alan Whittaker, seconded by Councillor Gordon France, and subsequently resolved (9 for: 1 against: 1 abstain) that permission in principle be refused due to the following reason:”

Minutes

The decision

Permission in principle was refused because the proposal was considered inappropriate Green Belt development without very special circumstances and would cause additional harm.

“The proposed development would be located within the Green Belt as defined by the Chorley Local Plan 2012 - 2026. The proposed development is not considered to meet with any of the exceptions to inappropriate development set out at paragraph 154 and would not meet with the terms of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework as it would lead to unrestricted sprawl, would harm the setting of a historic settlement and would not be in a sustainable location.”

Minutes