Industrial and storage uses at Cross House Farm, Great Eccleston, Preston

What was proposed

The retrospective application covered industrial uses, parking and loading, storage areas, a filled slurry pit, hardstanding and general storage of land.

“The proposal is a retrospective application for the change of use of land and building from agriculture to use of part of an agricultural unit to Class B2 and associated parking/storage area and the decommissioning, replacement of a previous agricultural building to a general industrial unit (Class B2) and associated parking/loading area and filling and creation of a hard-standing over a slurry pit, and change of use of the land to general storage use (Class B8).”

“This replacement building is constructed from green profile sheeting, with a pitched roof in profile sheeting. New areas of hardstanding have been created to the north and east of the site.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The farm site lies in the countryside, within Flood Zones 2 and 3, beside a public right of way and near neighbouring homes.

“The application site is a farm with a yard and buildings situated on the northern side of Moss Side Lane, Great Eccleston. The site is in the countryside and Flood Zones 2 and 3. There is a Public Right of Way outside the site to the southeast. The site is in an SSSI impact zone. There is a sealed main river outside the site to the northeast, approximately 125m away.”

“The application site comprises of several buildings some of which are in agricultural use and others which have changed use to Class B2 and form part of this application. Further to this is a newly erected building which replaced a previous building and is also in use for Class B2 purposes. The…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found unrelated businesses lacked countryside policy support and identified harm or insufficient information concerning character, amenity, highways and biodiversity.

“The proposal would result in the creation of multiple stand-alone businesses in an area of countryside as designated in the adopted Wyre Local Plan (2011-2031). The proposal does not constitute either an expansion of an existing business or diversification of an agricultural business. There is no policy that supports the creation of unrelated businesses in the countryside.”

“In terms of impact to the character of the area the proposal would result in further encroachment into the countryside This harm is exacerbated by the fact that there are wide ranging views of the site from various viewpoints. The caravan storage is clearly visible being located at the northern edge of the site and the parking area for the replacement building is also located to the eastern edge of the site with both these areas being particularly open.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three people spoke against the application, a ward councillor’s written objection was read, a county councillor spoke against it, and the agent supported it.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned biodiversity information, business hours, the application timetable, earlier permission, statutory requirements, road safety, residential amenity and countryside character.

“Councillor asked questions regarding: • The lack of information provided on biodiversity net gain • The hours of business • If it was correct that the application was submitted 6 months ago • Why hadn’t the necessary information been provided in that time • Why had the applicant not followed what they had in permission from 2022 • Were the applicants aware that it was a statutory requirement to provide information on Biodiversity Net Gain before submitting a claim for…”

“Councillor Swatton and Catterall raised concerns regarding statutory requirements not being met, the opening hours, road safety, residential amenity, and impact on the character of the area.”

Minutes

The vote

A refusal proposal was made and seconded, and members resolved to refuse planning permission in line with the officer recommendation.

“Councillor Swatton proposed the recommendation to refuse planning permission. Councillor Belshaw seconded the proposal. It was resolved to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes