The site in question is designated as protected open land in Bolton Council’s Core Strategy 2011 and as an opportunity area in the Greater Manchester Local Nature Recovery Strategy (“LNRS”).

The application was originally recommended for approval by the Council’s planning officer. However, members of the planning committee departed from the officer’s recommendation. Their reasons formed the main issues at the appeal, which were as follows:

(i) Whether the proposal would provide an adequate standard of living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal space;

(ii) The effect of the proposal on biodiversity, with particular reference to Castle Croft and Bradshaw Brook Site of Biological Importance (SBI) and veteran trees; and

(iii) The effect of the proposal on the operation of the highway.

The Council were represented at the hearing by members of the committee.

Friends of Harwood and Longsight Park, a local community group responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land in question, appeared as an Interested Party at the hearing. They made submissions in respect of reason for refusal 2 and other discrete issues, such as the weight to be given to out-of-date policies and the application of the tilted balance.

In short, the Inspector found for the Appellant in respect of issues (i) and (iii).  

However, as regard issue (ii), the Inspector first found that the development would be detrimental to the green infrastructure network supported by the LNRS and the Local Plan (paragraph 22).

Secondly, there was a dispute between the Appellant and Interested Party regarding the correct definition of veteran tree. The Appellant argued that the current NPPF definition should apply and endorsed the approach in a particular appeal decision (see paragraph 26-27). However, Friends of Harwood and Longsight Park argued that the Inspector should adopt the broader definition in the PPG and guidance produced by Natural England. Applying that definition, the development would be harmful to several veteran trees on the site recognised by the Ancient Tree Inventory.

The Inspector adopted the submissions of the Friends of Harwood and Longsight Park (see paragraphs 32, 39 and 48). Therefore, the development would harm irreplaceable habitat and the tilted balance would not apply.

Turning to the overall planning balance, the Inspector found that the benefits of the proposal did not constitute “wholly exceptional reasons”, such that the presumption at paragraph 193(b) of the NPPF was triggered (paragraphs 67-68).

Finally, the Inspector also found that the land was protected open land and, despite those polices being some 15 years out of date, were broadly consistent with the present NPPF. They therefore carried moderate weight in the planning balance (paragraph 66).

As such, the proposal was contrary to the development plan and there were no material considerations which outweighed that conflict (paragraph 69). The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Gabriel Nelson, instructed by the Environmental Law Foundation, advised Friends of Harwood and Longsight Park at the planning committee stage and represented the group at the appeal hearing.

The appeal decision can be found here.