PLANNING STATEMENT

JOE AINSCOUGH

EARSLWOOD BARN, MOSS LANE, WRIGHTINGTON, WN6 9PF

June 2021

(KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2)

Pegasus Group

Queens House | Queen Street | Manchester | M2 5HT T 0161 393 3399 | W www.pegasusgroup.co.uk

Birmingham | Bracknell | Bristol | Cambridge | Cirencester | East Midlands | Leeds | Liverpool | London | Manchester

© Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Limited. The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group Limited.

Joe Ainscough Earslwood Barn, Moss Lane, Wrightington, WN6 9PF Planning Statement

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 2 2. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS ...... 3 3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 5 4. PLANNING POLICY ...... 6 5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT ...... 10 6. CONCLUSIONS ...... 26

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Counsel Advice

Appendix 2 – Settlement Plan

Appendix 3 – Services Plan

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Planning Statement has been prepared on behalf of Mr Joe Ainscough (‘the applicant’) to support a detailed planning application at Earlswood Barn, Moss Lane, Wrightington. The application seeks detailed planning permission for the use of Earlswood Barn as a separate residential dwelling and a single storey extension with associated works. This Planning Statement considers the proposed development against relevant planning policy and provides an assessment of the development against these policies.

1.2 This Statement begins with a description of the site and surrounding area, as well as the planning history in Section 2, before going on to provide a more detailed description of development in Section 3. Section 4 provides a review of the relevant national and local planning policies, in the context of the application. Section 5 assesses the proposed development having regard to the development plan and other material considerations.

Page | 2

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

2. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The Application Site

2.1 The application site is depicted in the Site Location Plan submitted as part of this application and relates to Earlswood Barn, Moss Lane, Wrightington. The application site area is 0.43 hectares.

2.2 The barn is a single storey building which was built in the 1950’s and is constructed of brick with a clay tile roof. The building has main areas, which are separated by an open arch. The northern part of the barn is used as a garage and for storage of garden equipment. The southern side of the barn is used as a workshop and stables. The building is in good condition, externally and internally.

2.3 The existing building is currently used as ancillary accommodation associated with the main dwelling known as Earlswood which fronts onto Moss Lane set within mature gardens to the front and rear. The applicant has lived at Earlswood for over 35 years.

2.4 The building is accessed from the existing access close to the junction with Courage Low Lane which serves both Earlswood and the existing dwelling to the west of Earlswood known as Woodlands.

2.5 The site is located within Flood Zone 1, which has the lowest probability of flooding, from both ricers and seas flooding and surface water flooding. There are no listed buildings within the site boundary or in close proximity to the site.

Surroundings

2.6 The site is bound by Moss Lane to the north, the property ‘Peacock Hall’ and agricultural fields to the east, agricultural fields to the south and the property ‘The Woodlands’ to the west as well as agricultural fields.

2.7 There are a number of local services in the surrounding area which are within walking distance to the site, including; riding stables, restaurant, pub, café, hairdresser, hospital, church, PFS etc. The site is located 370m from the settlement of Robin Hood which is located to the southwest of the site.

2.8 In terms of other defined settlements in close proximity to the site, these include: Appley Bridge, Wrightington and Standish. Appley Bridge is the closest settlement, located approx. 0.8 miles from the site and offers a range of local services and facilities, including a railway station.

Planning History

2.9 The following provides a brief overview of the pertinent and recent planning history for the site.

2.10 2019/0910/LDC - Certificate of Lawfulness - Use of residential outbuildings and related land ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house known as Earlswood – Approved 23rd October 2019.

Page | 3

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

2.11 2018/1005/LDC - Certificate of Lawfulness - Use of residential outbuildings and related land ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house known as Earlswood – Refused 16th November 2018.

Pre-Application Advice

2.12 In October 2017, the applicant sought pre-application advice from the Council in respect of the proposed development. The pre-application advice confirmed that in Green Belt terms, the principle of the proposed development is likely to be acceptable subject to clarification on the extent of ground works required in and around the proposed dwelling.

2.13 Despite this, concern was raised in respect of paragraph 55 (now paragraph 79) of the NPPF as to whether the proposed development to result in the creation of an isolated dwelling in the countryside. This Planning Statement expressly deals with this matter and demonstrates that the proposed dwelling would not result in the creation of an isolated dwelling in the countryside and would amount to sustainable development securing the re-use of an existing building.

Page | 4

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 The application seeks permission for the change of use of the existing building to a separate dwelling house (Use Class C3) from its current lawful use as residential accommodation ancillary to a dwelling house. The application proposes a single storey extension and alterations to the existing building to facilitate the conversion to a separate dwellinghouse.

3.2 The works will create a new two bedroom, single storey dwelling which would be occupied by the applicant allowing him to downsize. The property would include a garage, workshop and garden store which will be accessed externally and would serve the new dwelling ensuring sufficient storage space.

3.3 The proposed materials will include a mix of the existing red brick, which reflects the existing barn building and the existing residential dwelling, and black wood effect cladding. The black wood effect cladding brings a new modern feel to the building whilst still being in keeping and reflecting the agricultural buildings in the local area.

3.4 Large windows and doors are proposed on the southern and eastern elevations of the building to provide views of the landscaped gardens and will create a bright and spacious feel to the proposed dwelling. An external porch will be created on the western elevation, where the property will be accessed.

3.5 As per the existing building, this will be accessed off Moss Lane and via the shared access road to the west of the existing dwelling ‘Earlswood’. All the existing trees surrounding the site will be retained and unaffected as part of these proposals. The proposals do not include any other amendments to the site with the driveway and boundary treatments remaining as existing.

Page | 5

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

4. PLANNING POLICY

4.1 Applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This section sets out the relevant policies of the adopted Development Plan, any material considerations of relevance to the determination of this planning application and any emerging local plan policy.

National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019)

4.2 The NPPF was originally published in March 2012, with a revised version adopted in July 2018 and then February 2019. As outlined in paragraph 2 of the 2019 NPPF, the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. We provide a succinct summary of the relevant themes and policies of the NPPF below.

4.3 Paragraph 8 confirms that in order to achieve sustainable development, the planning system has three overarching objectives which need to be pursued. These are economic, social and environmental objectives.

4.4 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF outlines the requirements to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking, this means approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay. Where there policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, grating permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

4.5 The NPPF sets out a series of key aims and objectives of the planning system, the most relevant of which we highlight below:

• Decision-making – Paragraph 47 of the Framework confirms that planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

• Delivering a sufficient supply of homes – Paragraph 59 of the Framework confirms the Government’s continued objective to significantly boost the supply of housing. Paragraph 79 goes on to state that planning decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside.

• Making effective use of land – Paragraph 118 notes that planning decisions should promoted and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing.

• Achieving well-designed places – Paragraph 127 notes how planning decisions should ensure that development are visually attractive as a result of good layout, are sympathetic to local character and history and should establish or maintain a strong sense of place.

Page | 6

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

• Protecting Green Belt land – Paragraph 145 notes that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate development. There are however a number of exceptions to this, including; extension or alteration of a building, replacement building, limited infilling etc. Paragraph 146 goes on to note that other certain forms of development are not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including the re-use of buildings providing they are of permanent and substantial construction.

Local Planning Policy and Guidance

4.6 The adopted Development Plan for West Lancashire comprises the West Lancashire Local Plan, which was adopted in October 2013.

West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027)

4.7 The Local Plan sets out the development requirements and aspirations for West Lancashire up to 2027. The proposals map confirms that the site is located within the Green Belt (see green shading).

Figure 1 – Extract from the West Lancashire Local Plan (2012 – 2027)

4.8 The following policies within the Local Plan are considered pertinent to the consideration of this application:

• Policy SP1: A Sustainable Development Framework for West Lancashire;

• Policy GN1: Settlement Boundaries;

• Policy GN3: Criteria for Sustainable Development; and

• Policy RS1: Residential Development.

Page | 7

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

4.9 Policy RS1: Residential Development states that within the Green Belt, only very limited affordable housing (i.e. up to 4 units) in the Green Belt may be permitted where it is proven that there are no suitable sites in non-Green Belt areas, in accordance with Policy GN5.

4.10 The wording of this policy suggests that the delivery of such affordable homes is the only permissible approach to deliver new homes in the Green Belt. However, this is clearly significantly more restrictive than the exceptions set out in paragraph 145 of the NPPF which supports the delivery of new homes in the green belt through limited infilling in villages, the re-use of buildings, and limited or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously development land within the Green Belt.

4.11 There is no restriction within these exceptions which state that development in the Green Belt must only be for very limited affordable housing. As such, Policy RS1 is in conflict with the NPPF whilst also conflicting with Local Plan Policy GN1 which confirms that proposals in the Green Belt will be assessed against national policy.

4.12 The West Lancashire Local Plan was adopted in 2013 and the most recent version of the NPPF was adopted in February 2019. The Local Plan therefore predates the NPPF and greater weight should be attached to the Framework as opposed to Policy RS1. This position is confirmed with the Six Foxes Farm appeal in October 20191 where there inspector concluded that:

‘As the LP predates the revised Framework and justification has not been provided for the more restrictive policy approach, I find that there is a conflict between Policy RS1 and Paragraph 146 of the Framework. Accordingly, I attach greater weight to the Framework.’

4.13 Further commentary on this matter is provided in the Counsel opinion provided as Appendix 1.

Other Material Considerations

Supplementary Planning Document: Development in the Green Belt (October 2015)

4.14 This SPD is subsidiary to the overarching Local Plan. Although it does not propose any changes to any Green Belt boundaries, it is used the Council when making a judgement on planning applications. Below, we note the relevant planning policies within the SPD of relevance to the proposed development.

4.15 Policy GB2 – Conversion or Replacement of Non-Residential Buildings in the Green Belt states that any proposal for the conversion of an existing non-residential building within the Green Belt should satisfy the following criteria:

• The building should be of permanent and substantial construction and capable of conversion without major change, demolition or extension;

1 APP/P2365/W/19/3228538

Page | 8

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

• The proposals will maintain and enhance the character and wider landscape setting and site features;

• The proposals seek to improve the external appearance of the building, in line with the Borough Council’s Design Guide SPD.

4.16 Policy GB4 – Alterations and Extensions to Buildings Within the Green Belt states that an extension to an existing building within the Green Belt should satisfy the following criteria:

• The existing building is lawful and permanent in nature;

• The total volume of the proposal, together with any previous extensions, alterations and non-original outbuildings, would not result in an increase of more than 40% above the volume of the original building.

• The design of the extension or alteration is in keeping with the original form and appearance of the building and does not materially harm the openness of the Green Belt through excessive scale or bulk, or by virtue of its location. It should also be in keeping with the character of the area and appropriate in terms of design and materials.

Supplementary Planning Document Design Guide (January 2008)

4.17 The guidance was published to assist with the development process to achieve a better quality of design. The Council is committed to improving all forms of development and to enhance the overall quality of the District’s built environment.

4.18 The SPD notes that there are four basic components to consider in all proposals which are: provision of an accurate site survey, the position of the building and site layout, the scale and form of the building and the external appearance.

Page | 9

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

5.1 This section assesses the proposal against adopted local and national planning policy, as well as other key planning matters including the appropriateness of development of the site with regards to:

• The Principle of Development;

• Green Belt;

• Other Matters.

The Principle of Development

5.2 As highlighted in Section 4, in respect of new residential development in the Green Belt, Policy RS1 Residential Development of the West Lancashire Borough Local Plan (WLBLP) (2013) does not accord with the most recent and up-to-date national planning policy; the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) and also conflicts with Local Plan Policy GN1.

5.3 Paragraph 145 of the NPPF states that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. There are however exceptions to this, including; limited infilling in villages, the re-use of buildings, the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land. There is no restriction, within the exceptions listed at Paragraph 145, which restricts development in the Green Belt solely for the purposes of affordable housing. As such, Policy RS1 is considered to be in conflict with the NPPF.

5.4 Policy RS1 is clearly more restrictive than the exceptions set out in Paragraph 145 and in fact Paragraph 146 of the Framework. The application of Policy RS1, when considering the conversion of a barn for residential purposes, was considered by an Inspector as part of the Six Foxes Farm appeal, at Jacksons Lane, Bispham2. Paragraph 12 of the appeal decision confirms that greater weight should be attached to the Framework as opposed to Policy RS1.

5.5 We have also sought Counsel advice on the proposal (Appendix 1). Counsel confirmed that ‘Policy RS1 can carry little or no weight’ and concludes that Policy RS1 is out of step with national policy and can carry no material weight (paragraph 7).

5.6 As the Local Plan (adopted in October 2013) predates the NPPF (published in February 2019), there is a conflict between Policy RS1 and the NPPF. As the NPPF is the most recent and up-to-date planning policy and the proposal should be considered under this Framework rather than Policy RS1 in terms of the appropriateness of the Green Belt location to accommodate the proposed development

2 APP/P2365/W/19/3228538 – Six Foxes Farm, Jacksons Lane, Bispham appeal

Page | 10

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

Isolated Homes in the Countryside

5.7 Given the commentary in respect of Policy RS1 there is a requirement to consider the appropriateness of the location having regard to the NPPF and specifically Paragraph 79, a matter that was raised during previous pre-application discussions.

5.8 Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside. In the case of the proposed development, it is considered that paragraph 79 is not engaged as the proposed development would not result in the creation of an isolated dwelling in the countryside. The following sets out why paragraph 79 is not engaged.

5.9 Firstly, it is important to consider how isolated homes in the countryside should be considered based on case law. The applicant has sought Counsel advice on this point in particular which provides a useful summary as to how this should be applied (Appendix 1).

5.10 With the Counsel advice note, David Manley QC confirms;

‘On any view, the proposed dwelling will not be “isolated” because it is actually proximate to Earlswood (the very point made by Lewison LJ in Dartford BC v. SoSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 141 when noting that two mobile homes should not be treated as isolated for Paragraph 55 purposes because they fell within the curtilage of a principal dwelling). It is clear from Braintree that one has to take a realistic view of “isolated” and the reality is, in this case, as noted above, that the site is within easy reach of a range of local facilities and services. As Linblom LJ noted para 79 is not a hard edged policy which sets hurdles to be overcome’ (our emphasis).

5.11 However, this Counsel opinion pre-dates a more recent High Court Decision at Bramshill Park, Hampshire3 which further considered the interpretation of isolated homes in the countryside. Paragraph 32 of this decision confirms that correct interpretation of ‘isolated homes in the countryside’ is that which is set out in paragraph 42 of the Braintree decision4.

5.12 As such, turning to Paragraph 42 of the Braintree this confirms that NPPF Para 79 (or as was then 55) requires the decision maker to consider whether the development would be physically isolated, in the sense of being “isolated from a settlement”. The decision then went on to confirm that what is a settlement, and whether a development would be isolated from it, are both matters of planning judgement.

5.13 Given the guidance provided by the Counsel opinion and case law, the following demonstrates how the site is in close proximity of a group of existing dwellings to the north, is also within close proximity to the settlement of Robin Hood as well as other settlements and the accessibility of the site to the other services and facilities within the local area.

3 Bramshill v SSHCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 320 4 Braintree DC v. SOSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 619

Page | 11

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

5.14 Firstly, the barn is not physically remote or isolated from other development with a group of dwellings located to the north of the site, off Moss Lane. Figure 2 below shows the three existing dwellings which consist of:

• Woodlands – 120m to the northwest;

• Earlswood – 80m to the north; and

• Peacock Hall – 90m to the northeast.

Figure 2 – Existing Group of Dwellings Adjacent to the Site

5.15 As can be seen, the site is located within a cluster of existing residential development, with all three of the existing properties on Moss Lane situated within 120m of the building. Given the close proximity to the existing dwellings, the site cannot be considered to be physically isolated from this group of dwellings. Such a case was promoted and accepted at appeal in respect of the Six Foxes Farm appeal5.

5.16 In the event that the local planning authority do not consider these dwellings to form a settlement for the purposes of the isolated homes test, it is important to note that the site is neither remote nor isolated from the small settlement of Robin Hood located along Robin Hood Lane Figure 3 is taken from an Ordnance Survey Map, which clearly identifies a number of dwellings located either side of Robin Hood Lane and provides a specific name of the settlement (Robin Hood).

5 APP/P2365/W/19/3228538

Page | 12

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

Figure 3 – Ordnance Survey Map of Robin Hood

5.17 The settlement of Robin Hood is a cluster of approximately 20 dwellings located along either side of Robin Hood Lane and High Moor Lane. The settlement also includes the farm buildings associated with Robin Hood Farm.

5.18 Although Robin Hood is not defined as a settlement within the West Lancashire Local Plan, the Local Plan merely identifies settlements for the purposes of guiding the location of new developments to higher order towns and villages, rather than being the definitive guide of what is, and what is not, a settlement. Indeed, the Braintree Decision6 provides commentary on what should be considered a settlement. Paragraph 32 of the judgement confirms that;

‘What constitutes a settlement for these purposes is also left undefined in the NPPF. The NPPF contains no definitions of a “community”, a “settlement”, or a “village”. There is no specified minimum number of dwellings, or population. It is not said that a settlement or development boundary must have been fixed in an adopted or emerging local plan, or that only the land and buildings within that settlement or development boundary will constitute the settlement. In my view a settlement would not necessarily exclude a hamlet or a cluster of dwellings, without, for example, a shop or post office of its own, or a school or community hall or a public house nearby, or public transport within easy reach. Whether, in a particular case, a group of dwellings constitutes a settlement, or a “village”, for the purposes of the policy will again be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decisionmaker. In the second sentence of paragraph 55 the policy acknowledges that development in one village may “support services” in another. It

6 Braintree DC v. SOSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 619

Page | 13

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

does not stipulate that, to be a “village”, a settlement must have any “services” of its own, let alone “services” of any specified kind’ (our emphasis)

5.19 As can be seen within the extract from the Braintree Decision, settlements do not need to be defined in Local Plans, or have existing facilities or services within them, to be determined a settlement for the purposes of assessing whether a site would result in an isolated home in the open countryside. This is the case with the settlement of Robin Hood which is a concentrated cluster of residential dwellings and is clearly a settlement for the purposes of this test despite there being no facilities within the small hamlet.

5.20 Given it is clear that Robin Hood is a settlement for the purposes of considering whether a site should be considered as isolated, it is necessary to consider the proximity of the site to the hamlet. Robin Hood is located both within walking and driving distance of the application site. In terms of specific distances, the following confirms relevant distances from the site to Robin Hood:

• As the crow flies – 370m;

• Driving – 590m or a 1 minute drive; and

• Walking – 590m or an 8 minute walk.

5.21 In the absence of any identified public rights of way between the site and Robin Hood, the most direct route is via Moss Lane and Robin Hood Lane, a distance of around 590m. Whilst there are no footpaths along either lane until you enter the hamlet, there are grass verges providing a walkable route and ability to avoid vehicular traffic travelling along the roads. In addition to this, it is important to note that the route between the site and Robin Hood (and beyond) is promoted by Lancashire County Council as a recommended on-road cycle route as highlighted in the Skelmersdale Rural Area Map7 as can be seen in Figure 4. This clearly highlights the suitability of the road for cycling and the appropriateness of the route to provide a sustainable mode of transport to Robin Hood as well as existing local facilities and services including those within Appley Bridge to the south and Wrightington Bar to the north.

5.22 Based on the above, it is clear that the site is neither isolated nor remote from the settlement of Robin Hood whilst also being accessible by a range of means of transport the settlement of Robin Hood is considered to be easily accessible from the application site.

7 https://www.westlancs.gov.uk/media/73213/skelmersdale_cycle_rural_web.pdf

Page | 14

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

Figure 4 - Lancashire County Council - Cycle Map

5.23 Based on the above, it is clear that the site is neither isolated nor remote from the settlement of Robin Hood. In given the ability to access the Hamlet by a range of means of transport the settlement of Robin Hood is considered to be easily accessible from the application site.

5.24 Whilst the previous paragraphs clearly demonstrate that the site is not isolated or remote from Robin Hood, we have gone further in assessing the sites relative isolation or remoteness from a wide range of settlements in the local area. This exercise is illustrated in Figure 5 and Appendix 2 which provides a plan illustrating the settlement boundaries which are defined within the relevant development plans (West Lancashire Local Plan and the Wigan Core Strategy) and those areas considered as settlements but not defined on the policy map. As shown on the plan, there are numerous settlements, both defined and undefined within the local area that the site is close to and also well related to.

Page | 15

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

Figure 5 – Plan to show designated settlements and none designated settlements

5.25 As can be seen in Figure 5, there are a number of existing settlements within close proximity of the application site and the following Table 1 provides a summary of both travelling and direct distance to each of the closest settlements.

Table 1 - Distances to Settlements in local area

Settlement Direct Distance Travel Distance Robin Hood 370m 590m Appley Bridge 675m 1,100m Wrightington 1,000m 1,350m Wrightington Bar 1,270m 1,850m Standish 1,800m 2,000m

5.26 As can be seen in Table 1, the site is within close proximity of a wide range of settlements varying in size from small hamlets through to major towns/urban areas all of which are within 2km travel distance of the site. As such, it is clear that the site is not remote or isolated from existing settlements.

5.27 To aid with the understanding of the issue and approach to defining isolated homes within West Lancashire, we have also undertaken a review of how this matter has been considered in recent years. Whilst we have already commented on the Six Foxes Farm Appeal decision which the local planning authority will be aware of, we are also aware of a recently determined application (ref: 2020/0431/FUL) for a change of use from a lodge to a single dwelling from June 2020 at Hesketh Farm, Outlet Lane, Simonswood, L31 1HN.

Page | 16

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

5.28 Within the Case Officer’s Report for this application, the Officer provides details of how the isolated dwelling test was being considered with the report confirming that that the site was surrounded by a limited number of other farmsteads and dwellings within its immediate locality. The report went on to state that there is a further cluster of residential properties at Spurrier’s Lane (approx. 0.4 miles away). It was concluded that the proximity to the cluster of residential properties at Spurrier’s Lane was sufficient to ensure that an isolated home would not be created given that those residential properties were considered as a settlement. The report confirmed that:

‘Due to the proximity of the immediate residential properties, the building would not be remote from other built form. In respect of its physical separation from the nearest settlement or community, on balance, I accept the case presented by the applicant that the dwelling is not isolated, in that it could be considered to relate directly to the small settlement of Spurriers Lane, which has wider links to larger settlements of Melling, Kirkby and Maghull’ (our emphasis).

5.29 Firstly, it is worth noting that within the Officer’s Report for the application at Hesketh Farm, the officer accepted that the site was related to the settlement of Spurrier’s Lane. Figure 6 is taken from an Ordnance Survey map and shows the area which the Officer is considering to be the settlement of ‘Spurrier’s Lane’. When looking at the Ordnance Map, there is no identified settlement name of ‘Spurrier’s Lane’, whereas the Ordnance Survey Map confirms Robin Hood as a settlement. Nevertheless, the Officer still considered this cluster of development to constitute a settlement.

Figure 6 –Application Site at Hesketh Farm and Spurrier’s Lane

5.30 With regards to the sites relationship to the nearby settlements; at Spurrier’s Lane there is a cluster of approximately 5 residential dwellings, two commercial buildings associated with ‘Carla Lane

Page | 17

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

Animals in Need’ and several poultry sheds. There is clearly less development at Spurrier’s Lane in comparison to Robin Hood. Given this, it is a useful exercise to compare these application proposals to the officer’s assessment in respect of the Hesketh Farm site. Table 2 provides a comparison of the two sites and their relationships with the settlements of Robin Hood and Spurriers Lane.

Table 2 – Comparison between Robin Hood and Spurrier’s Lane

Earlswood to Robin Hood Hesketh Farm to Spurrier’s Lane Development in Village 20 residential dwellings 5 dwellings on Spurriers Lane and 2 commercial buildings. Direct Distance 370m 650m Walking Distance/Time 590m (8 minute walk) 750m (9 minute walk) Driving Distance/Time 590m (1 minute drive) 750m (2 minute drive)

5.31 As shown in Table 2, there is significantly more development within the settlement of Robin Hood in comparison with Spurrier’s Lane, yet Spurriers Lane is still considered to be a settlement by WLBC. In terms of the accessibility to the two settlements from the sites, Robin Hood is clearly located closer to the application site than the Hesketh Farm site.

5.32 On this basis, given the relationship of the application to both the existing residential dwellings on Moss Lane and the settlement of Robin Hood, it is clear from the same interpretation/approach as that used in the Hesketh Farm decision must clearly conclude that the site is not isolated, nor remote. Any alternative assessment would clearly contradict the recently made decision at Hesketh Farm, as well as the appeal decision at Six Foxes Farm.

Sustainability

5.33 Clearly the proposal would not result in an isolated dwelling in the countryside and therefore paragraph 79 of the NPPF is not engaged. However, it is noted that a number of applications considered by West Lancashire have made reference to the sustainability of sites within the Open Countryside. Whilst this is not relevant to the consideration of isolated homes as highlighted by the various legal challenges and Counsel advice, the aims and objectives of Local Plan Policy SP1 are noted.

5.34 As such, the following specifically considers the sustainability of the site and accessibility to local services. As shown in Figure 7 and Appendix 3 there are a number of local services and facilities in the surrounding area which are located outside of defined settlements. These include the following services and facilities;

• Riding Stables;

• Restaurant;

• Pub;

• Café;

• Plant Nursery;

Page | 18

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

• Motorhomes Sales;

• Hairdresser;

• Hospital;

• Health/Health Club;

• Church; and

• Petrol Filling Station.

Figure 7 – Services and Facilities Plan

5.35 Although these services and facilities are not within a defined settlement, they are within a 30 minute walk of the site (as a maximum and some services are much closer) and therefore these services and facilities are considered to be accessible to the site.

5.36 The closest defined settlement to the application site is Appley Bridge; the edge of which is located approximately 1.1km from the application site (driving distance) and is accessed via Moss Lane and Robin Hood Lane. Within the Local Plan, Appley Bridge is defined as a Rural Sustainable Village and offers a range of local facilities and services, including; small scale retail uses, food and drink uses (pubs/restaurants/cafes), a number of employment areas and a railway station.

5.37 As highlighted earlier, the site is also located adjacent to a promoted on-road cycle route which provides access to Appley Bridge and Wrightington Bar as well as settlements further afield. Whilst

Page | 19

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

there is no marked dedicated cycle facilities on this route, it serves to highlight that the route is capable and safe to promote cycling as a genuine choice for travel from the site.

5.38 In terms of accessibility to public transport, the closest bus stops to the site is located approximately 1.5km from the site (walking distance) and are located on Crow Orchard Road to the southeast and Appley Lane North to the southwest. These bus stops provide regular connections to Skelmersdale and Wigan. Although there are no footpaths along Moss Lane in the immediate vicinity of the site, and no bus routes passing the site, it is still possible to walk from the site to a bus stops located on Orchard Road and Appley Lane North with grass verges ensuring pedestrian safety along the road. In any case, it is not out of the ordinary or unusual to walk part of the way to a bus stop on a grass verge before picking up a footpath further along the route. Moss Lane is a quiet road and leads to limited destinations meaning there will be little traffic travelling along this road and therefore suitable to walk along to access bus stops and other services and facilities within the local area.

5.39 The railway station at Appley Bridge is located approximately 3km from the site (6 minute drive) and offers hourly services to Manchester and Southport. This railway station is accessible to the site by cycle and by car. This sustainable mode of transport is over and above what other existing and established urban areas will have available to them given that there are many existing urban areas within the locality where access to a train station is not available or is significantly further away. Take the settlement of Eccleston as an example. Eccleston is located approximately 6miles to the north of the site with a population of over 4,000 people (as per the 2011 census) and yet there is no railway station within the settlement with the nearest railway station being located over 5km in Croston, which is much further than this site is located from Appley Bridge Railway Station. Similarly, the settlement of Hesketh Bank in Preston is located 10km from the nearest railway station in Croston.

5.40 Many existing urban areas throughout the region do not have good access to higher order sustainable modes of transport such as a railway station, and yet they are not considered to be unsustainable locations. The close proximity of Appley Bridge train station to the site makes this site accessible and within a sustainable location.

5.41 As well as Appley Bridge and the services and facilities noted above, there are also other settlements in close proximity to the site. Standish, located within Wigan Borough is located approximately 2.0 km to the east of the site. Standish offers a greater range of services and facilities, including; supermarkets, doctors surgery, dentists, primary schools, high school, shops, cafes, restaurants, veterinary surgery etc.

5.42 Wrightington is considered to be a Small Rural Village within the WLBLP and is located approximately 3km (driving distance) to the northeast of the site. This settlement offers; a primary school and public house as well as some specialist retail uses.

Page | 20

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

5.43 Based on this assessment it is clear that the site has access to a wide range of facilities and services in the local area that are accessible by a choice of means of transport, with the proximity to certain services and facilities comparable to distances experienced in existing urban areas. As such the site is in a sustainable location.

5.44 However, sustainability is not merely limited to travel patterns of the proposed development as is noted by Local Plan Policy GN3. As an existing building, there are clear sustainability benefits associated with the re-use of an existing building to create the proposed new dwelling. Whilst the proposals will only deliver a single new dwelling, it is clear that the re-use of an existing structure would result in significantly lower carbon footprint than a new build development and as such, would amount to sustainable development.

5.45 In addition, the proposals accord with the other relevant criteria of Policy GN3 and will ensure a development that is of a high quality design, protect the amenity of existing and future residents, avoid development in a flood risk area and protect existing landscaping features.

Green Belt

5.46 As noted in the earlier sections of this report, the site is located within the Green Belt and as such there is a requirement to consider how the proposals will affect the Green Belt and how they will accord with relevant guidance provided in the NPPF, Local Plan Policy GN1 and the Development in the Green Belt SPD.

5.47 Local Plan Policy GN1 confirms that proposals for development within the Green Belt will be considered against relevant national policy. For the purpose of this application, paragraph 145 of the NPPF confirms that whilst the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt are inappropriate, there are a number of exceptions to this. Paragraph 145 c) is of relevance to this proposal, which states that the following should not be treated as inappropriate development;

‘The extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building’.

5.48 The proposal will result in the alteration and extension to the existing building however this has been carefully designed to ensure it is of a scale and layout that ensures it would not result in a disproportionate addition to the original building and that does not extend beyond the existing building line ensuring it acts as an infill extension to the existing building. Dealing first with the overall scale of the extension, Table 3 provides a comparison between the existing building and proposed dwelling following the extension.

Table 3 – Comparison of Existing Barn and Proposed Dwelling

Existing Building Proposed Dwelling Increase in Size Building Area 205.1 m² 281.1 m² 37.06% Building Volume 812.6 m³ 1,120.83 m³ 37.9%

Page | 21

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

5.49 As can be seen in Table 3, the proposed extension will result in an increase in building volume of 37.9% when compared with the existing building. A similar increase will also be seen when considering the building area. GB4 of the Development in the Green Belt SPD provides some guidance on the consideration of extensions to existing green belt with part (b) confirming that:

‘The total volume of the proposal, together with any previous extensions, alterations and non- original outbuildings, would not result in an increase of more than 40% above the volume of the original building.’

5.50 As demonstrated in Table 3, the proposal will result in a volumetric increase of less than 40% of the original building and therefore accords with part b of this guidance. However, as recognised in the SPD the figure of 40% is just a guide and there may be examples where an extension below 40% would result in an unacceptable impact noting that the location of the extension will play a large part in assessing the impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Likewise, there will be some cases where an extension of over 40% would not have an unacceptable impact on the openness.

5.51 Criterion (c) provides additional criteria in relation to this confirming that the following must be satisfied:

‘The design of the extension or alteration is in keeping with the original form and appearance of the building and does not materially harm the openness of the Green Belt through excessive scale or bulk, or by virtue of its location. It should also be in keeping with the character of the area and appropriate in terms of design and materials.’

5.52 In this regard, the proposed extension to the building will respect the existing building line by effectively infilling part of the eastern elevation to create additional living accommodation and a garage. This will ensure that the proposed extension will not extend or project beyond the existing building line and will therefore not have a material impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

5.53 In addition to this, the scale of the extension is single storey and in-keeping with the existing building height and whilst the design will incorporate some timber effect cladding, much of the existing red brick will be retained with the new materials being reflective and typical of agricultural buildings present in the local area to ensure the design is in-keeping in the rural setting. In addition, the proposal will retain all trees and vegetation to ensure that the building remains blended into the existing landscape and ensuring that views into the site remain limited helping to ensure there is no material effect on the perceived openness of the Green Belt.

5.54 Finally GB4 confirms that the existing buildings need to be lawful and permanent in nature when considering extensions. We deal with this matter in relation to the proposed conversion of the building in the following paragraphs.

5.55 The preceding paragraphs have dealt with the proposed extension only and therefore it is necessary to consider the proposed conversion of the building and how this accords with relevant guidance in the NPPF and SPD. Out the outset, Paragraph 146 of the NPPF confirms that the re-use of buildings

Page | 22

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

is not inappropriate provided that they are of a permanent and substantial construction which is a similar matter raised through GB4 of the SPD.

5.56 The building which is proposed for conversion is permanent and of sound construction. It is made of brick, with a cavity wall and is used as a stables/ workshop/storage area with a lawful use of accommodation ancillary to the main use of the residential property known as Earlswood. As such, it is clear that the proposed conversion accords with the requirement of NPPF paragraph 146.

5.57 GB2 of the SPD goes further than NPPF paragraph 146 and sets out criteria for the conversion of non-residential buildings in the Green Belt. As the existing building is in residential use this part of the SPD is not considered applicable however the following assesses the proposed conversion against the criteria set out in the SPD noting that the existing lawful use is only ancillary to the main residential dwelling.

5.58 As already highlighted, the existing building is of a permanent and substantial construction that is fully enclosed and watertight. As such it is clearly capable of conversion without significant changes or demolition as per the requirements of criterion (a). A minor extension is proposed to the building but as already set out this is of a limited scale and proportionate to the existing building.

5.59 Criterion (b) states that the proposal must maintain and enhance the character of the wider landscape setting and site features. The proposed development largely retains the existing red brick incorporating some wood effect cladding to the extension and corner elevation which is typical of agricultural buildings in the local area. The proposed conversion does not require any amendments to the landscape, with the garden for the property reusing the existing garden area and therefore will have no impact on the local landscape setting.

5.60 Finally, criterion (c) requires any proposals to improve the appearance of the building in line with the Borough Council’s Design Guide SPD. The barn has been redesigned to create a more modern and visually appealing building which has taken design inspiration from some of the existing buildings within the local area however retaining the existing character of the barn/stable style building. As such it is clear that the proposal accords with the three set criteria noted within GB2 of the SPD.

5.61 Finally, the proposals have been designed to ensure that no other operational development is required with the existing driveway being used to provide access to the site and the garden area to use the existing garden of Earlswood retaining the existing boundary treatments. As such there is no other operational development which would materially impact the Green Belt in this location.

Other Matters

5.62 The following considers other matters of relevance and how the proposal complies with the relevant Local Plan policies.

Page | 23

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

Design

5.63 Policy GN3 Criteria for Sustainable Development states that proposals for development should be of a high quality design that has regard to the character of the local landscape. The Design Guide SPD (January 2008) seeks to improve all forms of development and enhance the overall quality of the built environment.

5.64 The scheme has been designed to take into account the existing building size, scale, materials and the existing development in the local area to ensure that the proposal is sympathetic to the original scale/appearance of the building and development in the local area.

5.65 The proposed extension is simple in form and therefore does not detract from the simple and traditional form of the existing building. The proposed dwelling will remain as single storey and will retain the key elements of the building including its archway connecting the two areas of the building.

5.66 The retention of the existing red brick will complement the proposed cladding which will form parts of the proposed external walls. The mix of brick and cladding will bring a modern and visually appealing design to the proposed dwelling whilst reflecting the existing dwellings and agricultural buildings in the local area. As such, the proposal is considered to uphold the principles, in terms of design, of Policy GN3.

Residential Amenity

5.67 Policy GN3 of the WLBLP requires new development to retain or create reasonable levels of privacy, amenity and sufficient garden/outdoor space for the occupiers of the proposed property and neighbouring properties.

5.68 As identified in earlier in this section, there are three residential properties to the north of the site. Earlswood is located 80m to the north, Peacock Hall is located 90m to the northeast and Woodlands is located 120m to the northwest of the barn. Given the distance from the existing building to these properties, no adverse impact on residential amenity would arise as a result of the proposed development. On this basis, the policy would comply with Policy GN3 of the Local Plan.

Highways/Parking

5.69 Policy GN3 of the Local Plan requires new development to incorporate suitable and safe access and road layout design. Parking provision must be in line with the standards set out in the Local Plan IF2 and Appendix F.

5.70 As noted within the earlier sections of this report, the barn is accessed on the same shared access point off Moss Lane that is used by the existing dwellings. This access is located along a straight stretch of Moss Lane ensuring that it has good visibility splays for vehicles exiting the site and clearly the addition of a single dwelling will have safe and suitable access and would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Page | 24

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

5.71 The development proposes to create a two-bedroom dwelling meaning that 2 car parking spaces are required to serve the development. As noted within the plans, there is a garage and ample space in front of the dwelling to accommodate at least 2 car parking spaces for the proposed dwelling. As such, the development complies with the requirements of Policy GN3.

Page | 25

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 This Planning Statement has been submitted in support of the change of use and extension to the existing outbuilding from ancillary residential accommodation to a dwelling house (Use Class C3). The development will deliver a single storey two-bedroom property allowing the applicant to downsize and free up a larger family home to meet local needs.

6.2 The scheme has been designed to retain the existing features of the building, whilst creating a modern and visually appealing new residential dwelling which fits well within the existing landscape. The brick walls of the barn have been retained and will be complemented by wood effect cladding to create a modern and visually appealing dwelling.

6.3 The site is located within the Green Belt and as such this Planning Statement has demonstrated how the proposals represent appropriate development within the Green Belt in respect of both the conversion and scale of the extension. The proposed extension would result in an increase in the volume of the existing building by around 38%, below that highlighted as being generally acceptable in the Development in the Green Belt SPD. The extension to the building respects the existing building line and will effectively amount to an infill development around the existing projection on the eastern elevation to ensure that there is no material impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

6.4 Although Policy RS1 of the Local Plan restricts residential development outside of the settlement boundaries in the Green Belt, Policy RS1 is considered to be in conflict with the NPPF. Policy RS1 is more restrictive than the exceptions provided within the NPPF (in particular paragraphs 145 and 145). In addition, the policy is also more restrictive than other policies in the Local Plan including GN1 which confirms that development proposals in the Green Belt will be considered in accordance with national planning policy. As such, the proposal should be considered under the NPPF and Policy RS1 should be given no material weight.

6.5 A detailed assessment of the site has been carried out in respect of NPPF paragraph 79 and whether the proposal would result in the creation of an isolated dwelling in the countryside. As highlighted in this Statement, having regard to the Counsel advice and case law, the proposed development is clearly not isolated or remote from existing settlements with it being adjacent to a small group of dwellings on Moss Lane, and very close to the existing settlement of Robin Hood. In addition to this, there are other settlements also in close proximity of the site which are defined as such in the relevant local plans.

6.6 This approach and view is supported by a recent determination at Six Foxes Farm, determined at appeal, as well as a recently approved application as Hesketh Farm.

6.7 Finally, whilst the site is located in a rural area, it has good access to a wide range of existing services and facilities in the local area providing a mix of retail, service, transport, employment and leisure uses with easy access to higher order centres. Whilst there are no bus services passing the

Page | 26

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Joe Ainscough Earlswood Barn Planning Statement

site, the site is located on a promoted ‘on-road’ cycle route by Lancashire County Council with grass verges capable of accommodating pedestrians. As such, the site is accessible by a range of means of transport whilst also being within easy travel distance of regular railway services.

Page | 27

KL/JB/P20-2888/R002v2

Appendix 1 – Counsel Advice

RE: LAND AT EARLSWOOD

A D V I C E

1. I am asked to advise whether there is merit in my client, Mr Ainscough, pursuing an application for residential use of an existing barn with proposed single-storey extension at Earlswood, Moss Lane, Wrightington. The land is in the Green Belt. Pre- application advice was received from West Lancashire District Council on 11th October 2017. That advice was positive in respect of Green Belt issues but stated at Paragraphs 4.12 – 4.14:

“4.12. In my view, the building is situated in an isolated location; it is located outside of the settlement and some distance from local amenities; approximately 1.2 km to the limited services along Appley Lane North and approximately 1.7 km to the services available at the Crow Orchard services on the M6 junction. As far as I am aware, there are no public services in the immediate locality of the enquiry site upon which future occupants could rely upon to reach these services, nor is there any footpath/cycle path which would facilitate sustainable modes of transport to and from the enquiry site. For these reasons, future occupants of the dwelling are likely to have to rely on private motor vehicles to reach essential facilities and services in the local area. 4.13. Consideration is therefore necessary as to whether, under paragraph 55 of the Framework, there are any special circumstances to justify the provision of a new dwelling in this location. Whilst I appreciate that this matter has not been addressed in the submission, I have given consideration to each of the points outlined above. It is understood that the proposed development would allow the

1

applicant to ‘downsize’ from the Earlswood and is not required to live at or near a place of work; the existing building is relatively modern in design/appearance and is unlikely to be considered a heritage asset; the building is not redundant or disused. I cannot consider the final point as outlined above as no details of the design of the proposed dwelling have been provided. 4.14. Therefore, on the basis of the limited information provided it is considered that the proposal would result in an isolated dwelling in the countryside and there are no apparent special circumstances to justify such a development. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with paragraph 55 of the NPPF.”

Paragraph 55 ibid is now replicated as Paragraph 79 of the revised NPPF (2019).

The Site

2. The site is an outbuilding to the south of an existing substantial property known as Earlswood. The outbuilding benefits from a Certificate of Lawful Use ancillary to the enjoyment of Earlswood. Earlswood and its associated outbuildings lie within the countryside.

3. The closest settlement is Appley Bridge which is circa 0.8 miles driving distance from the site. It offers a good range of local facilities and a rail halt.

4. Standish, within the Wigan Borough, is located approximately 1.3 miles to the east of the site. Beyond this is Wrightington (a Small Rural Village) located approximately 1.9 miles (driving distance) to the north east.

5. In addition to these defined settlements, there are a number of local facilities and services in the surrounding area but outside defined settlements. This includes the following services/facilities:

• Riding Stables;

• Restaurant;

2

• Pub;

• Café;

• Plant Nursery;

• Motorhome Sales;

• Hairdresser;

• Wrightington Hospital;

• Hotel/Health Club;

• Church; and

• Petrol Filling Station.

6. There are no footpaths along Moss Lane in the vicinity of the site and no bus routes pass the site. The closest bus stops are located approximately 0.9 miles from the site (walking distance) and are located on Orchard Road to the south east and Appley Lane North to the south west with these services providing connections with Skelmersdale and Wigan.

Key Planning Policies

7. The Development Plan is the West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027). Of particular interest is Policy RS1 which provides that outside development boundaries and within the Green Belt only very limited affordable housing (ie up to four units) may be permitted subject to sequential testing. The policy is much more restrictive than national policy and no local justification for such a departure is contained within the Plan. Interestingly, RS1 makes no provision for conversion of existing buildings beyond settlement boundaries and it is therefore out of step with national policy and can carry no material weight. NPPF Paragraph 146(d) is clear:

3

“Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt providing they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. These are … (d) the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction …”

This view of the incompatibility of RS1 ibid with the NPPF was recently endorsed in the Six Foxes Farm appeal decision (APP/P2365/”/19/3228538) in which Inspector Walker said:

“12. Policy RS1 of the West Lancashire Borough Council Local Plan (LP) Development Plan Document 2013 restricts residential development outside settlement boundaries in the Green Belt to very limited affordable housing. The proposal is for an open market dwelling and therefore would conflict with Policy RS1. However, Policy TS1 is clearly more restrictive than the exceptions set out in the Paragraph 145 of the Framework, including limited infilling in villages, which does not necessarily mean those with a defined settlement boundary, the re-use of buildings, and limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land. There is no restriction within these exceptions that they must be for affordable housing only. As the LP predates the revised Framework and justification has not been provided for the more restrictive policy approach, I find that there is a conflict between Policy RS1 and Paragraph 146 of the Framework. Accordingly, I attach greater weight to the Framework.”

8. The key issue that arises, therefore, from the Council’s point of view is whether the proposal can be characterised as an “isolated” home and so engages Paragraph 79 ibid. In my opinion, Paragraph 79 is NOT engaged in this case.

9. The law on this issue was comprehensively reviewed by Lindblom LJ in Braintree DC v. SoSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 610. It is to be noted that this post-dated the Council’s pre-application advice in the present case. Lindblom LJ said that Paragraph 55/79 ibid should be read in a common sense way. He noted that it stated a broad principle of approach but it did not set any hard-edged presumption or set criteria or hurdles to be

4 satisfied by a development to test the acceptability of any given proposal. In respect of the meaning of “isolated”, he said:

“30. Thirdly, the adjective ‘isolated’, which was the focus of argument before us, is itself generally used to describe a location. It is not an unfamiliar word. It is commonly used in everyday English. Derived originally from the Latin word ‘insula”, meaning an ‘island’, it carries the ordinary sense of something that is ‘… [placed] or standing apart or alone; detached or separate from other things or persons; unconnected with anything else; solitary” (The Oxford English Dictionary, second edition). This was the meaning favoured by the judge (in paragraph 24 of her judgment), and there is no dispute that in this respect she was right. 31. In my view, in its particular context in paragraph 55 of the NPPF, the word ‘isolated’ in the phrase ‘isolated homes in the countryside’ simply connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement. Whether a proposed new dwelling is, or is not, ‘isolated’ in this sense will be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker in the particular circumstances of the case in hand. 32. What constitutes a settlement for these purposes is also left undefined in the NPPF. The NPPF contains no definitions of a ‘community’, a ‘settlement’, or a ‘village’. There is no specified minimum number of dwellings, or population. It is not said that a settlement or development boundary must have been fixed in an adopted or emerging local plan, or that only the land and buildings within that settlement or development boundary will constitute the settlement. In my view a settlement would not necessarily exclude a hamlet or a cluster of dwellings, without, for example, a shop or post office of its own, or a school or community hall or a public house nearby, or public transport within easy reach. Whether, in a particular case, a group of dwellings constitutes a settlement, or a ‘village’, for the purposes of the policy will again be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker. In the second sentence of paragraph 55 the policy acknowledges that development in one village may ‘support services’ in another. It does not stipulate that, to be a ‘village’, a settlement must have any ‘services’ of its own, let alone ‘services’ of any specified kind.”

5

10. On any view, the proposed dwelling will not be “isolated” because it is actually proximate to Earlswood (the very point made by Lewison LJ in Dartford BC v. SoSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 141 when noting that two mobile homes should not be treated as isolated for Paragraph 55 purposes because they fell within the curtilage of a principal dwelling). It is clear from Braintree that one has to take a realistic view of “isolated” and the reality is, in this case, as noted above, that the site is within easy reach of a range of local facilities and services.As Linblom LJ noted para 79 is not a hard edged policy which sets hurdles to be overcome.

11. In the Six Foxes Farm ibid appeal, the Inspector identified the question to be asked as follows:

“10. Therefore, the issue of ‘isolated’ is not a consideration of the proximity of the site to services and facilities, but whether the proposed dwelling would be physically or functionally far away, or remote, from other places, buildings or people … 11. Given the lack of footways or street lighting along Jacksons Lane, it is unlikely that occupants of the proposed dwelling would walk or cycle to nearby services and facilities, particular as these are located beyond what would normally be considered as a reasonable walking distance. Therefore, occupants of the dwelling would likely be dependent on the use of a private car. However, Paragraph 103 of the Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise suitable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and states that this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making. Whilst the proposal would likely result in an increase in the need for private cars, the site is only a short car journey from a wide range of services and facilities including a train station. Therefore, in terms of rural locations, the site is relatively well served by a range of services and facilities, as well as employment opportunities. Whilst the development is for only one dwelling and therefore its effect would be limited, its occupants would nevertheless maintain, if not enhance, the vitality of the rural community.”

12. My clients site is not far away or remote from other places. Moreover the observations by the Inspector by necessary implication raise issues that go beyond Paragraph 79 ibid. Even if a view were to be taken that the site was technically isolated, that would

6

not be the end of the matter. Against that would have to be weighed the Framework support for the re-use of buildings for housing (itself seen as prima facie sustainable) and the fact of the close proximity of a broad range of services. These are important material considerations that weigh in favour of the proposal which taken together with its compliance with Green Belt policy indicates that an application should be approved.

I therefore advise that there is merit in pursuing a planning application.

KINGS CHAMBERS

36 Young Street MANCHESTER M3 3FT DX 718188 (MCH 3) Tel: 0161-832-9082 Fax: 0161-835-2139 DAVID MANLEY QC 5 Park Square East LEEDS LS1 2NE DX 713113 (LEEDS PK SQ) Tel: 0113-242-1123 Fax: 0113-242-1124

Embassy House 60 Church Street BIRMINGHAM B3 2DJ DX 13023 BIRMINGHAM 28th October 2020

7

RE:

LAND AT EARLSWOOD

A D V I C E

8

Appendix 2 – Settlement Plan

KEY Site Boundary District Boundaries Designated settlement boundaries within the Local Plan Settlement boundaries undefined within Local Plan

R evisions: First Issue- 20/05/2021 EH

Settlement Boundaries P20-2888 - Earlswood, West Lancs Client: Joe Ainscough DR WG No: D002v1 Sh eet No: - R EV: - Draw n by: EH Approved by: JB Date: 20/05/2021 0 0.5 km Copyrigh t Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. © Crow n copyrigh t and database righ ts 2021 Ordnance Survey 0100031673. Em apsite Licence num ber 0100031673. Prom ap License num ber 100020449. > Scale: 1:17,000 @ A3 Pegasus accepts no liability for any use of th is docum ent oth er th an for its original purpose, or by th e original client, or follow ing Pegasus’ ex press agreem ent to such use. T 01285 641717 w w w .pegasusgroup.co.uk (N

Appendix 3 – Services Plan

KEY Site Boundary 2km Radius District Boundaries Services / Facilities within 2km radius Community Facility Food/Drink Health Major Employment/Business Area Outdoor Recreation/Sporting Use Retail School Service # Appley Bridge Train Station Bus Routes

R evisions: First Issue- 20/05/2021 EH R evision 1 - 21/05/2021 EH

Services / Facilities within 2km radius # P20-2888 - Earlswood, West Lancs Client: Joe Ainscough DR WG No: D001v4 Sh eet No: - R EV: - Draw n by: EH Approved by: JB Date: 21/05/2021 0 0.5 km Copyrigh t Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. © Crow n copyrigh t and database righ ts 2021 Ordnance Survey 0100031673. Em apsite Licence num ber 0100031673. Prom ap License num ber 100020449. > Scale: 1:17,000 @ A3 Pegasus accepts no liability for any use of th is docum ent oth er th an for its original purpose, or by th e original client, or follow ing Pegasus’ ex press agreem ent to such use. T 01285 641717 w w w .pegasusgroup.co.uk (N