Stanworth Green Belt appeal lodged for 1.3m sq ft sheds

The Stanworth Green Belt appeal has been lodged after Chorley councillors refused a major industrial and logistics scheme on about 100 acres near Junction 3 of the M65.

FI Property Group is appealing the refusal of application 24/00847/OUTMAJ, which sought outline consent for two large employment buildings totalling roughly 1.3 million sq ft, alongside enabling works. Chorley’s planning officers had recommended approval, but the Planning Committee refused the scheme on 16th June 2026.

The appeal sets up a significant test of grey belt policy, employment need and landscape harm. The developer argues that the site should be treated as grey belt and that the shortage of very large industrial space gives the project substantial economic weight. The council’s refusal focused on the scale and extent of the development and the resulting landscape and visual effects.

Stanworth Green Belt appeal follows June refusal

The appeal concerns land east of Finnington Lane at Feniscowles and Withnell, close to the boundary between Chorley and Blackburn.

The hybrid application proposed two industrial and logistics buildings. Reporting on the application records floorspace of about 533,000 sq ft for one unit and 752,000 sq ft for the other, with full permission sought for enabling works and outline permission for the main buildings.

At its meeting on 16th June, Chorley Council’s Planning Committee went against the officer recommendation and refused permission. The council’s published decision records a single refusal reason centred on significant adverse landscape and visual effects caused by the scale and extent of the development.

The refusal said those effects could not be fully mitigated and would cause considerable harm to the character of the area. Members concluded that this harm significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the scheme.

The council decision record and Planning Committee papers set out the refusal and the material considered by members.

Grey belt will be central to the appeal

The site is within the Green Belt, but the developer has argued that it falls within the newer grey belt policy framework because it does not strongly contribute to the Green Belt purposes relevant to the assessment.

That is important because the planning consequences of grey belt can be very different from traditional Green Belt cases. Once land meets the relevant definition and the policy gateway is satisfied, development may be assessed through the specific grey belt provisions rather than relying on very special circumstances in the conventional way.

The Stanworth case is unusual because it is not a housing-led grey belt proposal. It is a huge employment scheme. The appeal will therefore test how the updated national policy applies where the claimed benefits are jobs, economic output, strategic industrial supply and infrastructure rather than housing delivery.

Chorley itself has been vocal about the pressure created by speculative grey belt applications while the Central Lancashire Local Plan moves through examination. In November 2025 the council called on government to change national policy so that emerging Local Plan protection could carry more force once a plan had been submitted.

Planning Geek has already reported several grey belt decisions since the policy change. The Stanworth appeal is larger and more strategically important than most because the physical scale of the proposed warehouses is itself at the heart of the refusal.

Officers had recommended approval

The committee refusal is also notable because it rejected professional advice. Planning officers had considered the scheme acceptable when the economic benefits, claimed grey belt status and mitigation package were weighed against the harm.

The developer says the project could accommodate around 1,100 jobs and generate about £44 million a year for the local economy. Earlier application material referred to a still larger cumulative economic effect over the life of the project.

The proposals also included transport upgrades and a substantial area of enhanced habitat. The developer says around 80 acres would be managed for wildlife and landscape purposes.

Those benefits did not persuade councillors. Their refusal reason was deliberately narrow, focusing on landscape and visual harm rather than challenging every element of the officer assessment.

That creates a relatively clear appeal battleground. The Inspector will need to decide how much harm the development would cause, whether that harm can be mitigated, what weight should be given to employment demand and the economic case, and how the Green Belt and grey belt policies apply to the land.

The emerging Local Plan adds another layer

The site is not allocated for the development in the emerging Central Lancashire Local Plan. However, the M65 corridor has been identified as an area with potential to respond to future employment needs.

The weight given to that emerging plan will depend on its stage, the extent of unresolved objections and the consistency of the relevant policies with national policy.

This is exactly the kind of situation where an appeal can become a wider policy test rather than a simple site-specific dispute. The Inspector may have to examine how the emerging strategy interacts with the current NPPF, the grey belt definition and evidence of demand for very large logistics buildings.

Landscape harm is likely to dominate the inquiry

The refused buildings are enormous. That does not automatically make them unacceptable, but it means visual impact cannot be treated as a minor design issue.

The site currently forms part of an open landscape close to existing settlements and major transport infrastructure. Warehouses of this scale would materially change its character even with planting, bunding and habitat enhancement.

The council’s case will therefore need to show why the residual effects remain unacceptable after mitigation. The appellant, in turn, will need to demonstrate that the landscape change is either less severe than members concluded or outweighed by the policy and economic benefits.

Public inquiry evidence is likely to cover landscape and visual impact, Green Belt purposes, employment need, alternative sites, highways, ecology and the weight to be given to the emerging Local Plan.

Why this appeal matters

The appeal was confirmed on 7th October 2026, although an inquiry date has not yet been published.

The case matters because it combines three live planning issues: the reach of grey belt policy, the treatment of very large employment schemes in the Green Belt, and the weight that can be given to an emerging Local Plan where the site is not allocated.

It also illustrates the difference between officer and committee judgement. Officers can recommend approval after weighing policy and technical evidence, but elected members are entitled to reach a different planning judgement if they can identify defensible material reasons.

An appeal then tests whether those reasons withstand independent scrutiny.

Planning Geek view

Stanworth is a better grey belt test than another small housing edge case because the development is so large and the claimed benefits are primarily economic rather than residential.

The refusal is also unusually focused. Chorley has not tried to throw every possible objection into the decision. It has put landscape and visual harm at the centre of the case.

That should make the inquiry easier to follow and harder to fudge. If the appellant can prove the land is grey belt, establish a strong strategic need for the floorspace and show the landscape effects are acceptably mitigated, the refusal could be vulnerable. If the council demonstrates that the sheer scale of the scheme creates harm that the policy balance cannot absorb, the appeal may fail despite the economic case.

Either way, the decision should provide useful guidance for other major grey belt employment proposals.