Application Number 07/2015/0348/FUL Address Long Fold Farm ITEM 8 Doles Lane Bretherton Lancashire
Applicant BR Pope _ Son
Agent Miss Claire Parker 7 East Cliff Preston PR1 3JE
Development Retrospective application for the erection of two buildings associated with the operation of a micro light airfield
Officer Recommendation Refusal
Date application valid 23.04.2015 Target Determination Date 18.06.2015 Extension of Time None
© Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100022485 South Ribble Borough Building A
Building B
Airfield Long Fold Farm
Report Summary Chorley Borough
Application Site and Surrounding Area
The application refers to an irregularly shaped parcel of land forming part of Long Fold Farm, Bretherton and located on the southern boundary of South Ribble. Its lawful use is one of agriculture, but at the time of the Officer’s site visit the area was mown, and in temporary permitted use (Class B, Part 4, Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015) as a microlight/light aircraft airfield.
Page 1 of 9 The land is part of a larger parcel of relatively flat, agricultural land farmed by the applicant, with mixed use commercial and farming operations centred at the farm house and accessed off North Road (350m south); adjacent is Doles Lane at approximately 370m east of the site.
The farm holding is split with northern lands and the site in question residing in South Ribble Borough, whilst the farm itself and southern lands sit in Chorley Borough. Public footpath ‘9-6- FP-6’ runs north through the farm yard, turning through farmland in an easterly direction just before it reaches the application site. Footpaths ‘9-6-FP-3’ and ‘7-8-FP-21’ bound the site in the east and west.
Site History
There is a detailed planning history on areas of this site governed by both Chorley and South Ribble Borough Council’s. The most relevant of these are:
An application was submitted to South Ribble in 2005 (07/2005/0949/COU) for ‘change of use from agricultural land to develop two intersecting grass airstrips for microlight and very light aircraft within a 5.7 Hectare parcel of agricultural land (within South Ribble Borough). Access to the airstrips to be via a grass taxiway along the western boundary of an adjoining parcel of agricultural land with car parking and office/toilet facilities provided in existing farm buildings (within Chorley Borough)’. A tandem application (05/01149/COUMAJ) was submitted to Chorley Borough Council at the same time but both were withdrawn in January 2006.
A similar application was submitted to Chorley Borough Council (05/01180/NLA) for ‘ change of use from agricultural land to develop two intersecting grass airstrips for microlight and very light aircraft within a 5.7 Hectare parcel of agricultural land (within South Ribble Borough). Access to the airstrips to be via a grass taxiway along the western boundary of an adjoining parcel of agricultural land with car parking and office/toilet facilities provided in existing farm buildings (within Chorley Borough)’. Again this was withdrawn but a corresponding application does not appear to have been submitted to South Ribble.
Slightly different applications were received by both Councils in 2006. 06/00892/COUMAJ for ‘change of use of agricultural land to a taxiway for Microlights (below 450kg) and Very Light Aircraft (below 600kg), access from North Road, Bretherton, retention of a portacabin for office/toilet facilities and car parking (the rest of the development is within South Ribble Borough)’ was refused by Chorley Council on the following grounds:
1. The proposed development would be located in the Green Belt as defined by Policy 6 and Map 4 of the adopted Joint Lancashire Structure Plan and by the Proposals Map of the adopted Chorley Borough Local Plan Review. It is considered that the necessary upgrading of the access would alter the character of North Road and therefore have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the Green Belt. The proposals are therefore contrary to PPG2: Green Belts, Policy 6 of the adopted Joint Lancashire Structure Plan and Policy DC1 of the adopted Chorley Borough Local Plan Review.
2. Due to its form and design the portacabin is incongruous within the rural area and therefore it is unacceptable to be sited on a long term basis at the site. It is therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt and contrary to PPG2: Green Belts and Policy DC1 of the adopted Chorley Borough Local Plan Review.
South Ribble refused a corresponding application (07/2006/0885/COU) for ‘change of use of agricultural land to provide two intersecting grass airstrips to be used by Microlights (Below 450kg) and very light aircraft (Below 600kg)’. The reasons for refusal were:
1. That insufficient information has been submitted to enable the full implications of the proposal on wildlife and its habitat to be assessed. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy ENV4 of the South Ribble Local Plan.
Page 2 of 9 2. That the frequency of flights and the proximity of the airstrip to residential properties would result in an unacceptably detrimental impact on the amenity of the occupiers of these properties by virtue of the noise disturbance created by the aircraft using the airstrip. As such it is contrary to Policy QD1 of the South Ribble Local Plan
Enforcement History – Several complaints have been received by this Council in respect of use of the airfield over and above the permitted 28 days per calendar year. Following protracted discussions it was agreed with the applicant that an application for planning permission would be submitted for erection of 2 buildings in summer of 2013; this was received by South Ribble in February 2015 but despite repeated requests for information remained invalid until 23rd April 2015. The applicant agreed that a second application for permanent use of the airfield would be submitted following completion of an ecology report which could only be undertaken between the months of March and August. A visit to the site confirmed with the applicant that this second application should to the Council and validated no later than the end of July 2015; at which point if not received, the case would be passed onto the Enforcement Team to consider further action.
Proposal
Description of works
The application seeks retrospective permission for retention of 2 no: buildings associated with the operation of a micro-light airfield, located on agricultural land to the north-east of Long Fold Farm, Bretherton.
Building 1 – An Agricultural type, steel portal frame building in green, box profile cladding. The structure measures 10m x 10m, with a maximum ridge height of 4.3m and eaves to 3.2m. Access is available from wide double doors to the front elevation facing the mown, temporary air strip. The applicant’s statement notes that the building will be ‘for general purpose use to store grass mowing equipment and items related to the microlight airfield’
Building 2 – An agricultural style, green polytunnel with a steel frame and polythene exterior, located to the southern side of the airfield. The building measures 9m x 9m with a maximum height of 4m. The design & access statement submitted for this building states that the building is for ‘general purpose use to store ground maintenance equipment, storage lockers and items related to the operation of the microlight airfield’
Access to the buildings is currently via existing roadway and mown agricultural land and will not change
During a site visit, it was observed, and the applicant freely admitted that these buildings are used for storage associated with the airfield including at the time of the visit 7 permanently parked aircraft; 2 of which are stored on the main farm (Chorley Council)
Summary of Supporting Documents
In addition to scaled drawings, the application is accompanied by a design statement, Green Belt Statement (Cassidy & Ashton C/3593: January 2015) and photographic evidence.
Representations
Summary of Publicity
Three site notices have been posted and 45 neighbouring properties have been consulted. Much Hoole and Bretherton Parish Councils have also been contacted, and a private letter of objection has been circulated by one of the neighbouring residents.
In total 32 letters of representation have been made; some in support and some objecting to the proposal. Both include comments which refer in part/wholly to the use of the airfield itself.
Page 3 of 9 Whilst this application seeks permission only for the buildings, they are inextricably linked to the airfield and its history, which is in some part relevant to this determination; these have been marked as *. The recommendation of this proposal however is purely based upon the planning merits of the buildings themselves.
Letters of objection
18 letters of objection have been submitted and include the following comments:
General
Several requests that the decision is made by planning committee and not delegated to Officers Respondent requests referral to Much Hoole and Bretherton Parish Councils Use of the airfield exceeds the 28 day permitted development allowance – evidence is available and has been presented to South Ribble Council* Loss of privacy and amenity as a result of aircraft movements during take-off, landing and maintenance* Use of the airfield impacts severely on wildlife, grazing animals and equine stock* Flight path is directly over residential areas* Wildfowl in the area are European Protected Species* Microlights should only be used at approved charity events* No need for plane storage on a working farm – application made to Chorley Council in 2006 stated that plane storage would not occur Vehicular movement and sightlines to the farm are already bad; this proposal will only increase traffic movement and danger on the highway Danger to young riders* The airfield benefits the farmer but is of constant disruption to the community* Large scale opposition to the airfield has continuously been ignored* Applicants complete disregard to planning policy
Bretherton and Much Hoole Councils, and the Wildfowl Trust have been consulted; their comments form part of this report. The application referred to in 2006 was refused by Chorley Borough Council, and as such conditions to restrict plane storage per-se do not exist. In light of evidence to their current use however, it is assumed that plane storage is included in the applicant’s reference to ‘items related to the operation of the microlight airfield’ and should be considered during determination of this application. Sightlines and access to the site remain unchanged and are not affected by the proposal for 2 retrospective buildings; subsequently the buildings themselves are not considered to cause additional impact to riders or other highway users.
Design/Siting
Unnecessary change of use / loss of agricultural land Objection to use of the buildings as aircraft hangars Level of temporary, unlicensed use does not warrant such permanent buildings which will encourage extended use of the airfield Respondent references Civil Aviation Regulation CAP793 which states that ‘If there are no permanent buildings such as a hangar on the site, the aerodrome operator or pilot should consider siting a small hut, or caravan, on the aerodrome to store fire appliances, first aid equipment and a movements log’. These structures go over and beyond what should be considered but is not a mandatory requirement
Green Belt Concerns
Inappropriate, unnecessary structures in the Green Belt
Page 4 of 9 Applicant has a history of retrospective application which sets a precedent for future, inappropriate Green belt development and increased aircraft activity* Impact on visual openness of the area ‘Very Special Circumstances’ for Green Belt development do not exist
In addition, comments have been made which have no relevance to the planning application and as such have not been taken into account.
Respondent objects to the retrospective application process in general and Council inaction
Letters of Support
14 letters of support have also been received. These are summarised as:
General
Anything which makes the airfield safer is welcomed* Buildings enable essential farm diversification in line with national policy Airfields are considered outdoor recreation for which Green Belt policy makes provision* No objection as long as use of the buildings doesn’t increase use of the airfield*
Design/Siting
Buildings are in a quiet location, well screened and are unobtrusive in their environment No visual impact at all Buildings are agricultural in style and not inappropriate in this rural, Green Belt location Buildings are less intrusive than alternative constructions and are similar to others in the area There is no impact on the adjacent public right of way or conflict with existing agricultural operations
Comments made which have not been considered are:
Letter circulated by resident includes false information in an attempt to garner support for refusal of the application
Summary of Responses
Chorley Borough Council – objects to the proposal on the following grounds:
1. ‘It is not considered that information provided adequately demonstrates that the buildings are necessary for the operation of the microlight airfield and that the equipment that is stored within cannot be located in other existing buildings within the farm complex. It is unclear exactly what equipment is to be stored within the buildings, how this equipment is necessary to allow the activity to continue and why two buildings of the scale proposed are necessary.
2. Even if the provision of additional buildings were considered to be required, it is considered that the siting and location of the buildings in their current location is unduly harmful to the openness and character of the Green Belt. The buildings are sited remotely from the existing complex of farm buildings and access, and in disparate locations within the field in which they are located. The buildings are therefore inappropriate within the Green Belt.
3. Furthermore, it is considered that the erection of permanent buildings within the area that is used for the operation of the microlight airfield, may possibly contravene the requirement of Schedule 2, Part 4, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Page 5 of 9 Development) (England) Order 2015 that the activity may not take place on land that is within the curtilage of the building’.
In the case of point 3, the buildings are not within the domestic curtilage of the farm, but are within the ownership, and form part of the agricultural holding of the farm.
Lancashire Wildlife Trust have been contacted by a resident of Bretherton, and as a result have offered comment. Their response however is a generic policy discussion relating to the airfield, and not to the buildings themselves.
Material Considerations
Policy Background
The Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (the Plan) underwent an Examination in Public in March 2013 and received a Partial Report from the Planning Inspector in November 2013. A Partial Version of the Plan has been produced which includes all the Main and Additional Modifications discussed during the hearings and consulted on during summer 2013. This Version has now been endorsed by Cabinet and Full Council on 6 and 20 November, respectively, for use in development management purposes to guide decisions on planning applications. Whilst the Plan has not been formally adopted, it has been endorsed by the Council and in line with the Inspectors Partial Report; it now carries ‘significant weight’ in the planning process. As a result of this, the Local Plan (2000) now carries only limited weight in the planning process and is considered to have been broadly superseded by the Plan. However, to fully accord with Local Plan regulations the Local Plan (2000) will technically remain in place until the formal adoption of the Plan due in 2014. Where an allocation or policy is contradicted between the Plan and the Local Plan (2000), the Plan will now take precedent.
Adopted policy of relevance to this application is:
National Planning Policy Framework
Chapter 3: Supporting a prosperous rural economy states that planning policy should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by supporting the growth and expansion of all types of business through conversion of existing buildings, well- designed new buildings and farm diversification schemes (para 28); each with great emphasis on good design in line with Chapter 7 of the same document.
Chapter 7: Requiring good design. This policy attaches great importance to the design of the built environment which contributes positively to making better places for people.
Chapter 8: Promoting Healthy Communities also supports the important contribution that opportunities for sport make to the health and well-being of communities (para 73), whilst acknowledging that noise resulting from new development may also impact on health and quality of life (para 123)
Chapter 9: Protecting Green Belt Land states that the fundamental aim of Green belt policy is to ‘keep land open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts being their openness and permanence’ (para 79) whilst para’s 87 & 88 describe inappropriate development as by definition harmful to the Green belt, which should not be approved except in very special circumstances which clearly outweigh other considerations. Para 81 of the same document however encourages provision of opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation. In addition Para 89 states that local planning authorities should have regard to buildings for ‘provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport/recreation… as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it’ but notes exceptions to this inappropriate development as reflected in Policy G1 of the Site Allocations DPD (Partial version) below.
Page 6 of 9 Central Lancashire Core Strategy
Policy 17: Design of New Buildings - new and altered development must take account of the character and appearance of local areas, including sympathy with surrounding land uses. This policy also aims to ensure that the amenity of occupiers of development will not be adversely affected by neighbouring uses and vice versa.
South Ribble Site Allocations Development Plan Document (Partial Version)
Policy G1: Green Belt reflects the NPPF in that it presumes against inappropriate development in the Green belt unless very special circumstances exist, but permits proposals which maintain the fundamentally open nature of the area. It restricts, but does not prohibit construction of new buildings in the green belt; allowing for extensions and alterations to existing buildings where the finished development does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the original building. Policy G1 also supports change of use of existing buildings provided that the encroachment of urban uses beyond the existing boundary of the site into surrounding countryside is avoided.
Policy G17: Design Criteria for New Development states that planning permission will be granted for new development provided that the proposal does not cause harm to neighbouring property or residents, would not prejudice highway or pedestrian safety and where proposals do not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance . The policy also supports retention and augmentation of landscape features such as mature trees, hedgerows, ponds and watercourses. Whilst supportive of development, the policy does specifically state that ‘criteria should be considered in conjunction with other policies relevant to that individual application’ e.g. green belt requirements
Central Lancashire Rural Development SPD
Section 45 (Recreational Development) of this policy discusses provision of new buildings to support recreational activities with a preference for urban or edge of centre sites. Where such facilities are required in the countryside i.e. where the recreational use requires extensive areas of open space, buildings should be small scale, clustered together and should not include any development over that which is reasonably required.
Other Material Considerations
Green Belt and Rural Economics
This site is designated as Green Belt to which the NPPF, Central Lancashire Core Strategy, South Ribble Site Allocations (Partial Version) and Central Lancashire Rural development SPD refer. The relevant policies of these documents work upon the fundamental premise that the essential characteristic of Green Belt land is its openness and permanence. Development is not prohibited, but is restricted to conversion of existing structures, and new built development within carefully prescribed situations which adhere to this basic principle, or where there are ‘very special circumstances’ which clearly outweigh other considerations. Proposals which have regard to buildings for provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport/recreation are also supported but again are subject to caveats that such development must be small scale, clustered together and of such a size that development is not more than that which is reasonably required.
Whilst the development in question purports to support sports and recreation, the lawful use of the site is in fact one of agriculture and not that of airfield; the applicant has stated on several occasions that the field is in use only for 28 days per year in accordance with Class B, Part 4, Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. In light of this temporary use it is questionable as to the need for buildings of such size and permanence which would interrupt the ongoing agricultural use of the site for the larger part of the year when the airfield is out of action. In fact retention of the buildings may be seen as the first step towards a more significant, permanent change to this agricultural land. In
Page 7 of 9 addition, the applicant states that the buildings are for storage of general purpose/maintenance equipment, storage lockers and items related to the operation of the microlight airfield which would seem unnecessary and excessive for only 28 days operation, and effectively constitutes a more onerous change of use of the land as aircraft are stored in the buildings on a permanent basis. The argument that planning policy should support rural business growth and expansion through, amongst other things farm diversification, is not particularly relevant as the ‘airfield’ diversification in question is in itself at best temporary, at worst unlawful and does not form part of this application.
The retrospective application to retain 2 no: storage buildings is considered to constitute inappropriate development in the green belt which by virtue of its size, scale and remote location would harm the character and openness of the area. In addition it has not been demonstrated that the economic benefits of the scheme as a whole (part of which is temporary and has not been included in this determination) outweigh the harm to the landscape, and that buildings are in their own right necessary; particularly when considering the considerable range of existing buildings within close proximity of the farm yard which could be used for this purpose. These form the first reasons for refusal.
Design
Adopted design policy states that built development should contribute positively to, and take account of the character and appearance of the area. The buildings in question have the appearance of agricultural buildings and in design terms are not unacceptable. Comments have been made about a loss of visual amenity from neighbouring properties as a result of the structures, and whilst their siting makes this unlikely, the buildings are considered to be unacceptable by virtue of their size and scale in this very open, rural, green belt location; particularly when viewed from the public rights of way which circumvent the site. This forms the second reason for refusal
Relationship to Neighbours
The closest residential properties are more than 400m away in all directions and separation is considered more than adequate. Loss of amenity, privacy or overlooking is unlikely should retention of the buildings be approved.
Natural Environment
As retrospective structures in open, undeveloped land, it was not considered necessary to request an ecology statement or tree survey. Issues of this nature are relevant only to use of the airfield itself which does not form part of this application.
Highways Considerations, Suitability of Access and Parking Arrangements
There are no highway implications to be considered.
Temporary Use
Whilst the use of the airfield is not in question, as the buildings are proposed to support a temporary use, clarification of the appropriate temporary use legislation (discussed above) which includes provision for moveable structures may be useful.
Class B, Part 4, Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 allows for
‘The use of any land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, of which not more than 14 days in total may be for the purposes of – a) The holding of a market; b) Motor car and motorcycle racing including trials of speed, and practicing of these activities,
Page 8 of 9 And the provision on the land of any moveable structure for the purposes of the permitted use.
Development is not permitted if: a) It would consist of development… of land for film making b) The land in question is a building or is within the curtilage of a building c) The use of the land is for a caravan site d) The land is, or is within a site of special scientific interest and used for (a* & b*) above or war games or clay pigeon shooting e) Use of the land is for display of advertisements’
CONCLUSION
This proposal is considered to constitute inappropriate development in the green belt which by virtue of its size, scale and location would harm the character and openness of the area. The economic benefits of the scheme are not considered to outweigh the harm to the landscape and are, in their own right, considered unnecessary. In addition by virtue of their size, scale and location the buildings are considered to be visually dominant in this green belt location.
The retrospective request to retain 2 no: buildings for the storage of general purpose/maintenance equipment, storage lockers and items related to the operation of the microlight airfield does not accord to Chapters 7 (Requiring Good Design) and 9 (Protecting Green Belt Land) of the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policy 17 (a, c and d – Design), and Site Allocations Policies G1 (Green Belt) and G17 (Design). As such, the proposal is recommended for refusal
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal.
REASONS FOR REFUSAL:
1. The buildings constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which by virtue of their size, scale and location are unduly remote from the complex of farm buildings, and harm the character, openness and appearance of the green belt location. As such, the proposed development is contrary to Para's 87 - 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Central Lancashire Rural Development Supplementary Planning Document, Central Lancashire Core Strategy Policy 17 (a,c,d) (Design) and Policies G1 (Green Belt) and G1 (Design) of the South Ribble Partial Version Site Allocations Document
2. It is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated very special circumstances to justify need for the proposal when existing buildings are available in the immediate vicinity for this purpose, and that the economic benefits of the scheme insufficiently outweigh the harm to the landscape. As such, the proposed development is considered contrary to green belt policy namely Para's 87 - 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Central Lancashire Rural Development, Supplementary Planning Document, and Policy G1 (Green Belt) of the South Ribble Partial Version Site Allocations Document
RELEVANT POLICY
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework 17 Design of New Buildings (Core Strategy Policy) POLG1 Policy G1 Green Belt POLG17 Policy G17 Design Criteria for New Development SPD3 Rural Development (Supplementary Planning Documents)
Page 9 of 9