Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Allowed14 March 20253350855

Land west of Sea View Drive, Hest Bank, Lancaster, LA2 6BZ

erection of 27 no. specialist bungalows for older people with detached garage and associated access, internal roads, infrastructure, open space, landscaping and parking

Authority
Lancaster City Council
Appeal type
major · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
residential · Major dwellings
Inspector
McCormack A

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the NPPF and relevant development plan policies
  • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the landscape and the surrounding area, including the setting of the Lancaster Canal at Hest Bank
  • The effect of the proposal on highway safety with particular regard to highway layout and design, the potential conflict between users and the provision of appropriate connectivity to the Lancaster Canal towpath
  • Whether the proposal would be at risk of surface and ground water flooding and whether a sequential test to demonstrate that the proposal cannot be located in an area at a lower risk of flooding is required. If required, whether the scope of a sequential test should extend beyond the Bolton and Slyne ward boundary
  • The weight to be accorded to the proposal's contribution to meeting identified older persons housing needs

What decided it

The finding that the site was Grey Belt land and not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, combined with the NPPF11d(ii) tilted balance concluding that the limited harms identified did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the substantial housing and other benefits.

The limited harms identified to landscape character, highway safety and flood risk did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the significant and substantial benefits of the proposal, including meeting identified older persons' housing need, addressing the housing land supply shortfall and above-policy affordable housing provision, so the balance under NPPF11d(ii) favoured granting permission.

Framework references: 11, 57, 63, 110, 115, 135, 143, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 174, 175, 181, 182, 187

Plan policies cited: Policy SP2, Policy EN4, Policy DM50, Policy HE1, Policy T3, Policy DM29, Policy DM46, Policy DM8, Policy DM57, Policy DM60, Policy DM61, Policy DM62, Policy DM32, Policy DM33, Policy DM34, Policy DM44, Policy DM45, Policy DM28, Policy DM30a, Policy DM30b, Policy DM30(c), Policy SP8

Judgments cited: Visao Ltd; Mead Realisations

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.