Up to 8 homes at Land 55M North East Of 53 Bradley Lane, Eccleston

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to eight homes and associated infrastructure, with detailed design reserved for a later stage.

“The application is for ‘Permission in Principle’ for up to 8no. dwellinghouses and associated infrastructure. This type of application seeks only to establish the principle of the development. The submitted site plan is indicative only, and does not form part of the assessment of this type of application.”

Officer report

Earlier site applications

Earlier applications concerned relocating a stable block and muck midden, with associated hardstanding and a new access from Bradley Lane.

“Ref: 13/00173/FUL Decision: WDN Decision Date: April 2013 Description: Relocation of existing stable block and muck midden including associated hardstanding and new vehicular access from Bradley Lane.”

“Ref: 13/00601/FUL Decision: PERFPP Decision Date: August 2013 Description: Relocation of existing stable block and muck midden including associated hardstanding and new vehicular access from Bradley Lane (re-submission of previously withdrawn planning application 13/00173/FUL).”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the site grey belt, found unmet housing need, judged the location sustainable and concluded the Green Belt exception applied.

“As of September 2025 (Five Year Housing Supply Statement for Chorley September 2025), there is a 3.4 year deliverable housing supply over the period 2025-2030. The Council cannot demonstrate an adequate supply of housing and the shortfall is significant. There is clearly, therefore, a demonstrable unmet need for the proposed development of housing.”

“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

What consultees said

The parish council objected because it considered the proposal inappropriate Green Belt development outside Eccleston’s settlement boundary, while United Utilities gave advice for any later detailed application.

“United Utilities (UU) – Although not consulted on the proposal given its nature, United Utilities have provided the following comments in respect of the application: “Should this proposal be approved, and a further application submitted for Technical Detail Consent, it is important to note that our response to a subsequent application will be based upon the information that is available at the time of response, and therefore, our position and advice may vary.”

“Eccleston Parish Council – Commented stating that they object to the application on the grounds of inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Stating that the site lies beyond the defined settlement boundary of Eccleston, within land designated as open countryside in the Chorley Local Plan 2012-2026 and is contrary to Local Plan Policy BNE1 and Core Strategy Policy 1.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor and the agent spoke to the committee.

The committee vote

The committee resolved by nine votes to two to refuse permission in principle.

“After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Alan Whittaker, seconded by Councillor Gordon France, and subsequently resolved (9 for: 2 against) that permission in principle be refused to the following reason:”

Minutes

The final decision

Permission in principle was refused because the committee considered the proposal inappropriate Green Belt development and harmful by definition.

“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.”

“Planning Committee Tuesday, 11 November 2025 to overcome the definitional harm to the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes