PWA wins planning appeal over ‘Protected Land’ application

protected land planning application

PWA has helped gain planning approval for a small housing development after winning a planning appeal in a case involving ‘Protected Land’.

The decision means the applicant can go ahead with a proposed development of two detached houses and a bungalow on land at Hesketh Lane in the village of Tarleton, West Lancashire.

The development site relates to two different planning applications on adjoining sites on the edge of the settlement. One of the applications was for the single three-bedroom bungalow and the other for the two five-bedroom dwellings.

The site as a whole had a dwelling and detached garage on it and despite being on the edge of the settlement was allocated as ‘Protected Land’ in the development plan. Both applications were refused given their location outside of the settlement in this Protected Land.

Joe Davis, assistant planner at PWA, commented: “In our appeal statements for both applications we argued that the site is at odds with its protected land status and makes minimal contribution to the rural character of the area and its protected status.

“Furthermore, the scale of development proposed would have minimal impact on the site or the wider rural character of the area. The site’s wider context is also characterised by residential development associated with the settlement of Tarleton. This was deemed to reduce the development’s impact on the wider rural landscape further, with development of the site continuing the existing grain of development to the rear of Hesketh Lane.”

The Inspector in the planning appeal (which covered both sites in one) agreed with our argument noting the following within their appeal statement:

“The sites are adjacent to existing residential properties along two sides, and adjoin a large nursery business to the north, which contains significant areas of hardstanding, car parking, and several buildings. Accordingly, they are largely contained by substantial built development along three sides, and only adjoin open countryside to the west…Moreover, as the sites do not have a rural character, the proposals would not significantly affect the rural character of this area of Protected Land.”