Goosnargh Lane appeal dismissed
A planning inspector has upheld Preston City Council’s July 2025 refusal of 95 homes at Swainson Farm, the latest version of a proposal that has bounced around the planning system since 2019.
The main issue, as set out in the officer report prepared for Preston’s planning committee meeting on 2 April, was whether the site is a suitable location for the development, having particular regard to the development plan’s spatial strategy.
In line with officer recommendation, committee rejected the plans in July on the grounds that the “proposed development would be contrary to the hierarchy of locations for focusing growth and investment at urban, brownfield, and allocated sites” and lead to “unplanned expansion of a rural village”.
The matter was considered in early February at an informal hearing, and a decision handed down at the month’s end.
Landowners Gillian Wells, Thomas Swarbrick, and Lynn Johnson were the applicants for the proposal, and were initially understood to be the only landowners – however, it has since become clear that McDermott Homes owns part of the land, something the inspector was made aware of before the hearing and was satisfied nothing more sinister than a genuine error had occurred.
The land is located to the east of the former Swainson Farm. Not in dispute is that the land is open countryside, and would thus represent expansion of a rural setting. What has been contested is that the council can demonstrate a five-year supply, which could bring in the ‘tilted balance,’ with the application team asserting that new data on housing stock and affordability should have been used.
However, inspector Henry Jones ultimately concluded that there is no requirement for a council to assess its five-year supply against a requirement more often than annually.
Enough weight was given, though, to the appellant’s case that the supply numbers were compared against both the established requirement of 620 and that put forward by the appellant, 664, with the inspector concluding that in either case the council’s supply is sound.
The report said: “For completeness, the inspector’s assessment put the council’s supply at 5.5 years set against the upper requirement figure and 5.9 years’ worth against the lower”.
While the inspector agreed affordable home provision would be boosted by the scheme, he was not swayed by the appellants’ drawing attention to other sites, which they stated where comparable and where planning permission had been granted. The inspector considered these sites, but concluded that there were significant enough differences between the proposals.
In summary, the inspector concluded both that Preston can demonstrate a five-year supply, and that the Swainson application would be at odds with the development plan’s spatial strategy.
This may not be the end of the matter. The applicants have been looking to win a consent at the site for some years, with initial plans coming forward in 2019. Two previous bids for 87 homes were rejected.
The 2025 iteration had been recommended for approval at first, but a decision was deferred with members requesting a site visit. After attempts to arrange this with a legally permissible number of members present failed, Preston’s supply situation changed, and officers recommended refusal when the matter returned to committee in July.
