# Land to the rear of 3 Broad Lane, Downholland - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gravett - **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6012188 - **Application reference:** 2024/0497/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Yoga facility with hardstanding (retrospective), wildflower meadow, pond and orchard; change of use for beekeeping and outdoor yoga and holistic therapies - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, agricultural-land-BMV - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(f)(iv), GB7(1)(g)(ii), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 GN1, GN3, IF3, EC2 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, character and appearance, accessibility, living conditions, BMV land, VSC - **Tags:** openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, outdoor-recreation-facilities, openness-minimised-test, unmet-need-not-evidenced, grey-belt-assumed, decision-vs-plan-making-policies, sustainable-location-pass ## Summary Retrospective yoga studio with parking in a field behind a house in the West Lancashire Green Belt. Dismissed. Outdoor yoga counts as outdoor recreation, but the building was an indoor studio rather than an "appropriate facility" and it did not minimise the impact on openness, so it failed GB7(1)(f). The grey belt route also failed on limb (ii), because no unmet need for yoga facilities was evidenced. Substantial weight went to health benefits (HC4) and significant weight to biodiversity, but these did not clearly outweigh substantial Green Belt harm and substantial DP3 character harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework is "a material consideration of critical importance which should be taken into account from the day of publication"; the parties commented (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(f)(iii)/(iv): FAIL.** "I am satisfied that outdoor yoga is a recreational activity" (DL ¶8), but "the building cannot reasonably be considered an appropriate and proportionate facility … It appears and functions as an indoor yoga studio with separate treatment room" (DL ¶10). Separately, it "fails to minimise the impact on the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶13). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL.** "I have very little evidence before me that there is an absence of existing outdoor recreation provision locally, or a particular or unmet need for yoga facilities" (DL ¶15). The other limbs were not considered (DL ¶16). - **Character, DP3(3): substantial weight.** "Policy DP3(3) states that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with (1). Accordingly, I afford substantial weight to the harm" (DL ¶38). - **Location, TR3-type: PASS.** "the proximity of the bus stops, and the availability of bus services offers a choice of transport mode" (DL ¶22). - **GB5 not usable in decisions.** "this is a plan-making policy and paragraph 8 of the Framework is clear that these should not be used when making decisions" (DL ¶36). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Against the scheme: substantial weight to Green Belt harm and substantial weight to character harm. For it: HC4 substantial weight and significant weight to biodiversity (DL ¶33-34, ¶39). Not clearly outweighed, so no VSC (DL ¶39-40). ## What made the difference The building was too large and too indoor-focused to be a facility ancillary to outdoor recreation. Separately, the grey belt route needs evidence of unmet need for the specific use, and for non-housing uses footnote 41 gives no automatic answer. Even substantial HC4 health weight could not overcome two sets of harm that each carried substantial weight. ## Transferable points - For non-housing development, GB7(1)(g)(ii) "evidenced unmet need" must be shown with evidence about the specific use. Testimonials of popularity are not enough (DL ¶15-16). - A building that functions as an indoor facility is not an "appropriate facility" for outdoor recreation under GB7(1)(f)(iv) (DL ¶10). - DP3(3) can lift character harm to substantial weight (DL ¶38). - GB5 is plan-making only and cannot be relied on in decisions (DL ¶36). - HC4 gives substantial weight to demonstrable health and social benefits (DL ¶33). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(f)(iii): pass.** outdoor yoga is outdoor recreation; the change of use of the land falls within (f)(iii) (DL 8) - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): fail.** studio is an indoor yoga studio with a treatment room, not an appropriate facility; even if it were, it does not minimise impact on openness (domed roof conspicuous, gravel parking) (DL 9-13) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** no evidence of absence of local outdoor recreation provision or unmet need for yoga facilities; grey belt assumed arguendo; other limbs not considered (DL 15-16) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate development, spatial and visual openness loss (DL 12-13, 38) - **DP3(3): harm (substantial weight).** urbanising hardstanding encroaching into countryside; DP3(3) says refuse without clear justification, so substantial weight to character harm (DL 19-20, 38) - **TR3: pass.** lit continuous footway to half-hourly Southport–Liverpool bus stop offers a choice of mode despite no evening service (DL 21-23) - **N2(1)(b): neutral.** grade 2 BMV land but not significant development of agricultural land (DL 29-32) - **HC4: benefit (substantial weight).** demonstrable contribution to health and social interaction (DL 33) - **GB5: not-engaged.** plan-making policy, cannot be used in decisions per Framework para 8 (DL 36) ## Key facts - Studio built with central pentagon yoga room, kitchen, toilets, lounge and therapy room; used for yoga, Reiki and breathwork by multiple practitioners (DL 9) - Site was free of buildings in 2020 satellite imagery (DL 12) - BNG assessment showed about +42% habitat units and +70% hedgerow units (DL 34) - Bus stop within short walk on lit footway, 30-minute service Mon-Sat, none in evening (DL 21-22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012188 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/10f344bf-d74b-417d-9ffa-3171c61d24a7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012188.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.