Decision
Analysis
outcome: The planning permission was refused based on multiple reasons related to the impact on the landscape, habitat, and sustainable development principles.
summary: The decision at stake is the refusal of planning permission for a large-scale residential development in a rural location.
topline: The Planning and Development Committee has decided to refuse planning permission for a large-scale residential development in a rural location.
reason_contentious: This issue is contentious as it involves balancing the need for housing development with environmental and landscape preservation concerns.
affected_stakeholders: ["Residents near the proposed development site", "Environmental groups", "Developers", "Local government officials"]
contentiousness_score: 8
political_party_relevance: There are no explicit mentions of political parties in the decision.
URL: https://democracy.ribblevalley.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1262
Decision Maker: Planning and Development
Outcome: Recommendations Approved
Is Key Decision?: No
Is Callable In?: No
Purpose:
Content: Councillor T Austin left the meeting and took no part in the debate or vote. Mr C Heap spoke against the application. Councillors S Farmer was given permission to speak and spoke against the application. RESOLVED 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 introduction of an incongruous, unsympathetic, and discordant form of development, particularly when viewed from public vantage points along Longsight Road (A59) approaching the site from both the western and eastern directions, Public Footpath FP0606a which crosses the site and residential properties to the north of Langho village afforded direct views of the site. This would result in adverse, long term and permanent visual and landscape harm. The resultant impact fails to respond positively to the inherent visual and landscape character of the area contrary to Policies DMG1, DMG2, DME1 and DME2 of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework including paragraph 135. 4. The application fails to carry out appropriate assessments to fully assess the impacts of the development upon habitats within and adjacent to the site including whether appropriate protection and enhancement can be provided for protected species and their habitat. This is contrary to Key Statement EN4 and policy DME3 of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework. 5. The proposed development would result in the loss of existing habitat, hedgerow and watercourse units, with insufficient details being submitted to demonstrate an appropriate strategy for achieving the statutory requirement for Biodiversity Net Gain contrary to Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021). Councillor T Austin returned to the meeting.
Date of Decision: June 26, 2025