A Green Belt infill appeal has secured permission for two homes at Rufford Marina in West Lancashire, despite objections about the conservation area and the permanent loss of Grade 2 agricultural land. Inspector R Major allowed the proposal on 12 November 2026 after giving very limited weight to two restrictive provisions in the council’s adopted Local Plan.
The scheme involves an open parcel of land beside Watersedge Drive at Rufford Marina, on the southern edge of the village near the Leeds and Liverpool Canal. West Lancashire Borough Council refused application 2026/0093/FUL, but the Inspector found that the council’s housing supply was below two years and that national policy justified a materially different planning balance.
The significance of the Green Belt infill decision goes well beyond two houses. It demonstrates how an Inspector may give reduced weight to parts of a Local Plan that are materially inconsistent with the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, while still acknowledging real heritage and agricultural-land harm.
Why Green Belt infill was acceptable in principle
The appeal site lies within the Green Belt and the Rufford Park Conservation Area, but outside the defined settlement boundary. Both main parties agreed that the proposal amounted to limited infilling in a village and was not inappropriate Green Belt development under national policy GB7. The Inspector checked that position against the evidence rather than accepting it solely as an agreed label.
The Inspector expressly referred to Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWCA Civ 195. That Court of Appeal decision explains why a village’s extent cannot simply be equated with a mapped settlement boundary for the relevant infilling test. The Rufford decision applies the present framework; it is not a fresh court ruling.
The Green Belt infill conclusion mattered because national policy S5 establishes a favourable decision-making approach where development outside a settlement is not inappropriate in the Green Belt, unless its benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects under the relevant national policies. It did not exempt the scheme from the separate heritage, design or agricultural-land tests.
For the distinction between a planning settlement boundary and the actual development context, see Planning Geek’s guidance on building outside a settlement boundary. That distinction is particularly important where a site sits between existing buildings but remains within open countryside designations.
Conservation area policy carried very limited weight
The Inspector found that the land helped form a transition from Rufford village to the open countryside. Development would erode a small part of that openness. Its contribution to the overall significance of the extensive conservation area was modest, however, because neighbouring marina buildings and homes already extended further south and limited views were available from public places.
The design, scale, layout and parking arrangements were considered acceptable in this particular part of the conservation area, where the pattern of development was relatively dense and varied. Nevertheless, the removal of open land would cause a very low level of harm to its significance. That harm still had to be given considerable importance and weight.
West Lancashire Local Plan policy EN4, criterion (a)(i), effectively prohibited development that adversely affected a conservation area. The Inspector contrasted that absolute language with national policy HE6, which requires harm to a designated heritage asset to be weighed against public benefits. The Inspector therefore found this part of the local policy materially inconsistent with national policy.
That Green Belt infill assessment did not erase the local policy from the development plan. The Inspector assigned very limited weight to that particular criterion, while treating another local design policy, GN3, as consistent with the framework. The latter remained a genuine source of conflict because the scheme would cause very limited harm to the historic character of the local landscape and townscape.
The Inspector also distinguished EN4’s separate wording about public benefits in relation to listed buildings, parks and gardens. It could not simply be read across to conservation areas. The practical lesson is to read the exact clause under consideration, not assume that every part of a broad heritage policy has the same relationship with national guidance.
Grade 2 agricultural land was a real, but small, loss
The second contested policy concerned best and most versatile agricultural land. The parcel was Grade 2 and therefore capable of being treated as high-quality farmland. Local Plan policy EN2, criterion 4, prohibited development on such land except for particular allocated, strategic-infrastructure or agricultural schemes. Two private houses did not satisfy those exceptions.
By contrast, national policy N2 required account to be taken of agricultural land quality and, where significant development of agricultural land was necessary, the preference for poorer land. The Inspector found that two houses on this small parcel would not constitute significant development of agricultural land for the purposes of that national provision.
In the decision’s words, local policy EN2(4) was significantly more restrictive than, and therefore materially inconsistent with, the Framework
. The Inspector consequently gave the local criterion very limited weight. That is an important point for proposals affected by absolute local prohibitions which differ from the more qualified wording of current national policy.
The Inspector did not conclude that Grade 2 land was unimportant. Its permanent loss counted against the proposal, and arguments that the land was not currently farmed or commercially viable were not accepted as sufficient to dismiss its potential future use. The affected area was simply negligible and would not stop the remaining land to the south being farmed.
The Green Belt infill decision therefore cannot be cited as a general licence to build over high-grade agricultural land. The weight attached to the harm depended on the tiny area lost, retention of access to the larger field and the specific terms of the competing policies. Larger schemes could present a substantially different balance.
Housing shortfall tipped the overall balance
Housing delivery was decisive. The Inspector recorded evidence that West Lancashire’s supply of deliverable housing sites was below two years, describing that as a very significant shortfall. Although two dwellings would make only a limited numerical contribution, new homes in a sustainable location attracted substantial weight under national policy HO7.
The Inspector noted that the parties agreed future residents could reasonably access nearby services and facilities. Short-term construction activity and ongoing spending at local businesses offered additional economic benefits, albeit of limited weight. Taken together, the public benefits outweighed the very low conservation area harm in the specific heritage balance under policy HE6.
The Green Belt infill proposal still conflicted with the development plan taken as a whole, principally because of the limited landscape and townscape harm under local policy GN3. The Inspector considered whether material considerations justified departing from that plan-led position, rather than treating national policy as an automatic permission.
National policy S5 was applied because the site lay outside the settlement boundary. The Inspector concluded that the benefits were not substantially outweighed by the adverse effects assessed against the relevant national decision-making policies. The appeal therefore succeeded notwithstanding the remaining local-policy conflict and the small agricultural-land loss.
Conditions and the wider lesson for planning decisions
The planning permission is conditional. Among the safeguards are archaeological investigation and recording because of possible prehistoric activity, a detailed surface water drainage scheme, finished floor levels, materials, landscaping, wildlife measures and restrictions on the final garden boundaries. These were imposed to deal with specific site effects, not merely added as standard wording.
Privacy was another concern. The Inspector required obscure glazing and restrictions on opening windows on the side of one proposed house, together with boundary treatment details, to protect neighbouring residents. There was insufficient evidence to justify a separate land-contamination investigation condition. Each condition had to satisfy the relevant tests of necessity and reasonableness.
A Green Belt infill appeal of this size is not automatically nationally important. What makes this one useful is the Inspector’s explicit comparison of two restrictive local-plan provisions with the revised 2026 framework. It shows why policy weight must be explained provision by provision, with the residual harms still addressed in the final balance.
The decision was issued on 12 November 2026 under appeal reference 6012743, concerning West Lancashire application 2026/0093/FUL. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The Inspector’s reasoning applies to the evidence and policies of this particular scheme.
0 Comments