The Heysham housing appeal has allowed five new homes on designated open space in Lancaster, despite the council’s objections about lost green space, groundwater flooding and protected trees. An Inspector granted outline permission on 6 November 2026.
Inspector David Smith allowed the proposal for land west of Middleton Road in Heysham, close to Trumacar Primary School. Access is the only detailed matter approved at this stage. Appearance, landscaping, layout and scale still require approval.
The Heysham housing appeal matters because the Inspector accepted that the scheme conflicts with local open-space policies, yet found the harm outweighed by the benefit of new housing in an area with a significant shortage of deliverable sites. The Inspector’s approach to the flood-risk sequential test was also decisive.
Why the Heysham housing appeal succeeded
Lancaster City Council refused outline application 25/01219/OUT for five homes, but the Inspector overturned that decision on a section 78 appeal. The privately owned site sits on raised, uneven ground behind a steep roadside bank and a line of mature trees. Nearby housing and the primary school place it within the urban area, although much of the land has remained open.
The land is designated as part of the Combermere Grove Natural/Semi-Natural Green Space in the adopted development plan. The Lancaster Open Space Study 2025, prepared for the Local Plan Review, instead describes it as Significant Other Green Infrastructure. The difference mattered, but it did not mean the Inspector simply disregarded the adopted designation.
There was evidence that local children used the land informally for play. The Inspector accepted that it had community value, was not proved surplus to requirements and would be lost to development. The Inspector found conflict with Lancaster policies SC3, DM27 and DM43, as well as the open-space protection approach in national policy.
However, the most important ecological and visual feature was the mature woodland belt along Middleton Road. That would largely remain. The higher ground behind it made a limited contribution to the street scene, and the Inspector described the loss of the upper part as not a strong objection
. This was an assessment of the particular site, not an exemption from open-space protection elsewhere.
Groundwater flood risk and the sequential test
Lancaster’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies a medium groundwater-emergence risk at the site. The appellant’s desk study considered groundwater flooding unlikely, but further intrusive investigation was still recommended. Inspector Smith did not treat the strategic map as conclusive or the desk study as removing all uncertainty.
The Heysham housing appeal turned partly on the choice of alternatives for the flood-risk sequential test. The appellant had looked within Heysham for reasonably available sites capable of accommodating a comparable, medium-sized housing development. A former police station site with consent for 14 apartments and a retail unit was not sufficiently similar.
Smaller plots that could potentially provide individual houses had also been identified. The Inspector found no evidence that these scattered sites could reasonably be combined into one alternative scheme. They were not an automatic reason to fail a five-home proposal. The sequential test was therefore passed, while later design and flood-protection details could be controlled through reserved matters and conditions.
The outcome is useful for applicants and authorities alike: the sequential test must assess genuinely comparable alternatives, rather than treating every theoretical site in a settlement as equally suitable. Equally, the need for further groundwater investigation was not ignored. It was a remaining design and safety consideration, not a reason to refuse the outline principle on the evidence presented.
Trees, drainage and other site constraints
A woodland Tree Preservation Order covers the entire appeal site. The arboricultural evidence envisaged removing seven individual trees, four groups and part of another group, with some additional pruning. Most of those proposed for removal were of low quality or value. The main roadside belt of sycamore, ash and hawthorn would be retained.
The Heysham housing appeal shows why a tree constraint does not always make outline permission impossible. The Inspector considered that a workable layout, gardens and access could fit alongside retained trees without inevitably creating unacceptable pressure for later pruning or felling. A detailed arboricultural assessment and protection scheme must still be approved before works begin.
Drainage posed a separate challenge. The steep embankment made soakaways unsuitable, so the submitted strategy proposed controlled attenuation followed by discharge to the public surface-water sewer in Middleton Road. Neither the lead local flood authority nor United Utilities objected. The Inspector found that a sustainable arrangement appeared achievable, with its final design, management and construction-stage controls secured by conditions.
Because the site is elevated and slopes sharply, retaining walls may be needed. The Inspector acknowledged potential effects on outlook, daylight and appearance, particularly for homes at the northern end, but considered that layout and design solutions remained available at reserved-matters stage. This permission does not pre-approve any particular wall height or house design.
Housing shortage tips the planning balance
Lancaster’s September 2025 Housing Land Supply Statement put deliverable supply at just 2.8 years against the five-year requirement. The Inspector described this as a significant shortfall with no clear indication of when the emerging Local Plan Review would address it. Five additional homes therefore attracted considerable weight despite the scheme’s modest scale.
The Heysham housing appeal also considered possible benefits from clearing fly-tipped material, improved use of underused land and limited landscaping. A claimed 28% biodiversity net gain was noted, but the figure was not treated as an already delivered result. More substantial weight was attached to providing homes at a time of housing shortage.
The Inspector applied Policy S4 of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, which supports suitable development within settlements subject to its safeguards. The Inspector concluded that the adverse effects, including the recognised open-space loss, did not substantially outweigh the benefits, and expressly found that national policy considerations outweighed the conflict with the development plan as a whole.
Our guidance on open space and playing fields in planning explains why such designations still matter. Planning Geek also covers the evidence used to assess five-year housing land supply and how a flood risk assessment informs a planning application.
Conditions and the next stage
The permission requires future applications for the reserved matters, together with detailed drainage, tree protection, site levels, archaeology, construction management, lighting and parking arrangements. The conditions also address noise, sustainable design and ecological mitigation. The approved access does not remove those later obligations.
The site lies roughly 620 metres from the protected Morecambe Bay habitats. Following an appropriate assessment, the Inspector was satisfied that a homeowner information pack directing residents towards alternative recreation areas could avoid adverse effects on the integrity of those sites. That mitigation is a condition, not a voluntary suggestion.
Developers should also note the distinction between planning obligations and conditions. The Inspector indicated that any necessary open-space contributions could be secured through an obligation at reserved-matters stage if the statutory tests were met, rather than by attempting to require payments through a condition.
The Heysham housing appeal is therefore a notable example of an outline housing scheme succeeding despite acknowledged conflict with adopted policy. It does not establish that designated land is automatically available for development whenever housing supply is short. The weight of the open-space harm, realistic flood alternatives, trees and remaining design controls were all central to this decision.
The appeal is reference 6009700, decided on 6 November 2026, and the decision can be viewed on the Planning Inspectorate appeal page. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments