Up to 300 homes at Land off Longsight Road Langho

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 300 homes, a railway station car park, access, green infrastructure and drainage systems.

“OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR UP TO 300 RESIDENTAL DWELLINGS, ASSOCIATED ACCESS, RAIL STATION CAR PARK, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS (ALL MATTERS RESERVED EXCEPT FOR ACCESS) ON LAND OFF LONGSIGHT ROAD, LANGHO BOUNDED BY RAILWAY, NORTHCOTE PARK AND WILDMANS FARM.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The 20.01-hectare greenfield site lies outside Langho’s settlement boundary, beside roads, housing, a railway, a footpath, woodland and a watercourse.

“The site is greenfield agricultural land and sloped from the south to the north. An existing Public Right of Way footpath (PROW) 3-6-FP6 runs across the site and connects with Langho Railway Station and on to Langho via the railway tunnel.”

“The land includes a protected woodland, Green Nook Wood which lies to the northeast of the site, and there are other mature trees on the site. There is also an existing watercourse which runs north to south through the centre of the site.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found the site unsuitable for 300 homes because connections were ineffective, residents would rely on cars, and improvements did not resolve accessibility concerns.

“Longsight Road (A59) which for future residents located furthest south on the site would raise issues in terms of distances and accessibility. The nearest existing bus stop are located some 450m from the site access and over 1.3km from the southern part of the site. LCC Highways have requested new bus stops in both east and west directions on the A59. Whilst the precise siting of these is unknown at this stage, this is not considered to address the concerns.”

“It is considered that on balance the site in not a sustainable location to support 300 houses by virtue of the ineffective connections to Langho village and difficulty in accessing pedestrian and cyclist links, bus stops and the railway station, particularly by future residents with disabilities and reduced mobility or with prams/pushchairs/young children. The proposed improvements do not address these concerns.”

Officer report

What people said

About 200 representations included three supporting letters and 167 objections concerning scale, infrastructure, traffic, countryside, flooding, sewage, access and wildlife.

“Approximately 200 letters of representation have been received. These include three letters of support and 167 objections received from separate properties on the following grounds:”

“If the proposal goes ahead bungalows should be built near the railway line and a smaller car park; • Please do not remove the large oak tree behind the houses; • The proposal is contrary to several core principles of the NPPF; • This application is premature in the context of the current and emerging Local Plan, which should guide the location and scale of future growth in a plan led manner.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and Councillor S Farmer spoke against the application, while Councillor T Austin took no part in the debate or vote.

The decision

“THAT COMMITTEE: Refuse planning permission for the following reason(s): 1. The proposed development would result in a large-scale residential development, outside of a defined settlement, which fails to meet any of the exception criteria for allowing development in such location contrary to Key Statements DS1 and H2 and Policies DMG2 and DMH3 of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy. 2. The proposed development, by virtue of the quantum of development, would result in a large-scale development in a rural location resulting in future users being reliant on a private motor vehicle contrary to Key Statement DM12 and Policies DMG1 and DMG3 of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework which supports sustainable patterns of development. 3. The proposed development, by virtue of its overall scale and footprint, would result in the introdu”

Minutes, 26 Jun 2025