But officers recommended the plans for refusal, and councillors agreed the application should be thrown out.
Senior planning officer Lucy Embery said: “The properties are designed as five and six-bedroom houses.
“The scale and height are considered acceptable and so is the mixed palette and materials.
“The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of design.
Lewis Turner inquest: moped rider "travelling at motorway speeds" on residential New Longton road and without fastened helmet before fatal crash
M6 reopens after vehicle transporting sheep overturns following crash between Preston and Lancaster
M65 motorway crews strimming verges until 4am keep residents awake at night
Preston Brick Veil Mosque inquiry closes as debate rages over whether the place of worship should be permitted
The Old Vicarage Care Home: special measures status for Lancashire care home where resident was left lying on floor after falling out of bed
“However it’s in an urban location, it’s over the 0.5 hectare threshold but doesn’t have any affordable housing.
“The proposal is also considered to be very low density.”
The plans were recommended for refusal on the grounds of a lack of affordable housing, and an inefficient use of the land.
A report considered by councillors said: “The site is within the urban area, and the size of the site is over the threshold of 0.5 hectares that requires 30 per cent affordable housing to be provided.
“The proposed development for 14 dwellings does not provide for any affordable housing and the proposal is therefore contrary to adopted Core Strategy Policy 7, and the Central Lancashire Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document.”
The report also said the density of the proposed development was too low.
It said: “The application site is a greenfield site and the proposed density of 14 dwellings per hectare is not considered to represent efficient use of this land.
“The layout shows 14 large detached properties and it is not considered that there are any material considerations that require density to be this low.
“The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy 5 of the Core Strategy in that it does not make efficient use of the land.”
Committee chairman Coun Brian Rollo said: “The recommendation is for refusal for the two reasons.
“I agree fully with the officers.”
The application was rejected unanimously.