An airsoft appeal has been dismissed in North Lincolnshire after an Inspector concluded that an outdoor activity centre would disturb neighbouring households, particularly during the evening. The decision concerns a former National Grid compressor station at Messingham, near Scunthorpe, and was issued on 23rd October 2026.
Inspector Zoe Raygen accepted that engineering evidence had addressed the council’s concerns about a former high-pressure gas pipeline. She also considered a noise assessment submitted during the appeal, which prompted the council’s Environmental Health Officer to withdraw an objection on noise grounds. Neither point secured permission.
The airsoft appeal is worth examining because I would separate an apparently resolved technical safety objection from the everyday experience of residents. A separate application for appeal costs also failed. Together, the decisions show why better evidence at appeal stage does not automatically make the council’s earlier refusal unreasonable.
What was proposed at Messingham?
The appeal concerned a proposal by Stewart Cook to use the former compressor station and adjoining agricultural land as an outdoor airsoft activity centre, with three storage trailers and two touring caravans. North Lincolnshire Council had refused application PA/2025/1122. The appeal reference is 6008683.
The application was described as retrospective, but Inspector Raygen recorded that the proposed use itself had not started apart from one test event. The trailers and caravans were already on the land. That distinction mattered because the Inspector was judging the use as proposed rather than assuming that a fully operational venue had already proved acceptable.
The intended opening hours were 8 am to 10 pm, every day except Wednesday. The site is near two homes, Willow Farm and Catchwater Farm, in a relatively quiet rural setting. The central issue in the airsoft appeal was not simply whether shots could be heard, but how players’ voices and repeated activity would affect neighbours across a long operating day.
Why the airsoft appeal failed over evening noise
A noise impact assessment submitted with the appeal considered both airsoft gunfire and players’ voices. It included measurements taken in March 2026 and estimated increases at nearby residential properties. The assessment anticipated increases of no more than about 1.8 decibels over a typical one-hour period and recommended operational controls. The council’s Environmental Health Officer indicated that conditions could address the concerns.
That was helpful evidence for the applicant, but not the end of the assessment. The Inspector accepted the methodology yet remained concerned about what repeated shouting and player activity would mean for Willow Farm, especially as evenings became quieter. She considered that the use could erode the tranquillity and enjoyment of nearby dwellings during hours when residents could reasonably expect less disturbance.
The proposed action plan relied partly on staff discouraging shouting. The decision drew a pointed distinction: “discouragement is not the same as prevention” (Planning Inspectorate decision, Open Government Licence v3.0). The Inspector was not persuaded that this approach could reliably control activity throughout the evening.
There is a caution here for anyone reading the noise figures in isolation. A measured daytime event and an evening background reading involved different periods, so they could not simply be compared as though they were simultaneous tests. The Inspector instead focused on how the use would operate over time in this particular rural setting.
She considered imposing a condition limiting activity hours, but concluded that doing so would alter the proposal as applied for and would not be reasonable. It is important not to turn that finding into a general rule that shorter opening hours can never be conditioned. The airsoft appeal was decided on this proposal, the evidence and the Inspector’s judgment about the extent of a change.
Former gas pipeline safety was not the obstacle
National Gas Transmission had lodged a holding objection when the application was before the council because development would cross a high-pressure gas pipeline feeder. At that stage, the applicant had referred to an earlier proposal to demolish the redundant compressor station, but had not supplied sufficient engineering evidence to demonstrate that the remaining infrastructure presented no unresolved safety concern.
During the appeal, the applicant provided an engineering inspection and correspondence describing the decommissioning works. The material explained that redundant feeder sections had been cut and capped, pipework had been removed, and monitoring arrangements remained. The Inspector also observed evidence of the capped infrastructure during her site visit.
A small section of underground pipeline remained within the land, but the proposed activities would involve no excavation, changes to levels or new buildings in that area. Most of the sensitive land would also be fenced off and pyrotechnics would not be used. On that evidence, the Inspector was satisfied that appropriate safeguards could be imposed and that the use would not interfere with the decommissioned infrastructure.
The contrast is the unusual part of the airsoft appeal. The technical pipeline objection was overcome through new evidence, while the amenity objection survived even after a competent noise assessment and a favourable response from an environmental health specialist. An Inspector is not bound to follow a consultee’s view if the assessment of harm supports a different conclusion.
Why the costs claim was refused
In a separate costs decision, Inspector Raygen refused Stewart Cook’s application for a full award against North Lincolnshire Council. Costs in planning appeals do not normally follow the outcome automatically. The issue was whether unreasonable conduct by the council had caused unnecessary or wasted expense.
On the pipeline point, the council had received National Gas Transmission’s holding objection and did not have the later engineering evidence establishing decommissioning and safeguards. The Inspector considered that a former compressor having disappeared from view was not proof that underground pipes posed no issue. The technical information which eventually resolved the matter had arrived with the appeal, not before refusal.
On noise, the council had requested an assessment in October 2025. It received no completed report before refusing permission in November. The costs decision records no written request for an extension of time to allow the assessment to be prepared. Although the subsequently supplied report satisfied the council’s Environmental Health Officer, the Inspector still found substantive harm in the proposed evening use.
The airsoft appeal therefore also illustrates an important costs distinction. Evidence that eventually answers a refusal reason does not necessarily show that the original refusal was unreasonable, particularly where the missing evidence was not available to the council at decision time.
What applicants and advisers should take from this
For rural leisure proposals, opening hours, the behaviour of users and enforceable management measures deserve as much attention as a technical decibel model. If the most sensitive period is the evening, an application based on lengthy operating hours needs evidence that directly addresses that period, rather than an assumption that staff can always keep participants quiet.
For former industrial sites, physical removal of machinery does not necessarily resolve constraints from buried pipelines or other services. An appropriately scoped engineering report, a clear plan of any remaining infrastructure and engagement with the relevant operator may be essential well before determination.
Finally, a potential costs argument should be assessed against what the authority actually knew and reasonably requested when it made its decision. In this airsoft appeal, later engineering and acoustic material improved the appellant’s position on some disputed matters, but did not retrospectively turn the council’s request for evidence into unreasonable behaviour.
Read the Planning Inspectorate appeal record, reference 6008683, including the separate costs outcome where published. Planning Geek’s planning appeals guide explains the process and use classes guidance provides wider background on changes of use. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments