Return to BWML Development at Glasson Main Page

British Waterways Marinas Ltd Glasson Plans

Objections, Requirement for Planning Permission and Environmental Impact Assessment

Conservation Area

Glasson is designated a Conservation Area by Lancashire County Council. The City Council's Local Plan further states that the Glasson Conservation Area is subject to the additional control of an Article 4 Direction which curtails some classes of permitted development. For details see the council's mapping website, which explains that:

 In a Conservation Area controls on changes, alterations and additions are more stringent and works which would be permitted without question elsewhere will need careful consideration of their impact and may not be allowed.

As the sketch below shows, the extensive Conservation Area (coloured lavender-grey) covers not only the village and harbour but the whole of the basin, the boatyard, the canal, fields and woods up to the bridge over the canal, apart from the feed factory. The blue areas adjoining the Conservation Area are the Lune Estuary - a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is also the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC).  

BWML's proposed developments, according to plans with Lancaster Council in November 2007, all lie within the Conservation Area:

Sketch of Glasson Conservation Area and SSI with proposal indicated


The public amenity value of the canal basin within the Conservation Area is significant.  It is an open space which forms part of the character of the area. The sheltered stretch of open water is popular with novice kayakers, dinghy sailors etc. Popular walking routes (the Lune Estuary footpath, the Lancashire Coastal Path and the Caton Trail)  lie just North of the road that runs by the NE edge of the canal basin. To the North they look out over the Lune estuary, the SSSI and SAC. As they reach Glasson from the East, it is only a step over the road to the towpath beside the canal basin and the Conservation Area. The Lancashire Coastal Path continues through the village and leaves southward along the road in the bottom lefthand corner.

With its reed beds along the west and south sides used for nesting birds, the open view SW across the water from the towpath beside the car park is very attractive to visitors. There are swans, coots, grebes and a host of other birds. Current alongside mooring means there is always visibility through good-sized spaces between boats.

The corner of the canal-side between the public car park and the small wood is much used by anglers and events such as the Lancaster Maritime Festival, when it is taken over as an exhibition space. 

According to Lancaster City Council's leaflet on Conservation Areas:

The main purpose of designating conservation areas is to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of these special areas.  This is not only intended to improve the appearance and condition of buildings within conservation areas but also to protect open spaces, landscape and the wider setting of the conservation area from neglect and the harmful effects of unsympathetic alterations or development.

Proposed development

In the BWML's proposed development (indicated in red on the sketch above), 60-plus narrow boats filling the top edge of the basin moored end on to the car park will completely block the view.  Even if there are gaps, the planned extension of the jetties further across the basin (also in red) will obscure the view across to the far side.  The new jetties will stretch right round into the bottom corner by the school, currently a haven for birdlife and reedbeds.

A toilet, shower block and pumpout station (turquoise) will dominate the area now used for fishing and the Maritime Festival.

BWML claim that only 20 spaces in the car park will be set aside for narrow boats on its pontoons, a low figure for 60 boats. The car park along the NE edge of the basin is packed in the summer.  Reducing the number of car park spaces for visitors is another threat to the village's tourist trade.

Planning Permission or Permitted Development?

The powers of British Waterways Marinas Ltd  are not as comprehensive as they seem.  For developments on the water BWML inherits its permitted development powers from British Waterways (BW). These include limited powers for development on land only where they are linked directly to water based development.

Article 4 Conservation Status Outweighs Permitted Development

The City Council's leaflet states that the Glasson Conservation Area is subject to the additional control of an Article 4 Direction which curtails some classes of permitted development.  It implies that the council has the power to intervene.

5.7.31 In areas of acknowledged importance, such as conservation areas, local authorities can remove permitted development rights and bring specified operations under the control of planning legislation. Such action is carried out using an Article 4 Direction. Article 4 Directions already cover [...] Glasson. [...]  The Council will consult with affected residents and businesses when reviewing existing Article 4 Directions and introducing new directions.
[Lancaster District Local Plan adopted in 2004 (edited for brevity)]

What counts as Permitted Development?

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 defines in article 3 where planning permission is not be required, i.e. permitted development, and the cases are listed in Schedule 2.

Part 17 Class C of Schedule 2 relates to "Works to inland waterways" by "Statutory Undertakers" such as BW, and defines Permitted Development as:

The improvement, maintenance or repair of an inland waterway (other than a commercial waterway or cruising waterway) to which section 104 of the Transport Act 1968 (classification of the Board's waterways) applies, and the repair or maintenance of a culvert, weir, lock, aqueduct, sluice, reservoir, let-off valve or other work used in connection with the control and operation of such a waterway.

What counts as improvement is debatable. It would be interesting to hear why BWML believes these plans are a permitted development.

Limited associated land development is also permitted, by Class B of Part 17 of the Schedule 2, provided that it is:

    (a)  for the purposes of shipping, or
    (b)  in connection with the embarking, disembarking, loading, discharging or transport of passengers, livestock or goods at a dock, pier or harbour, or with the movement of traffic by canal or inland navigation or by any railway forming part of the undertaking.
It would appear that this is the part that covers jetties and pontoons, viewed as piers or extensions of land. A toilet block doesn't seem to fall within its remit. Bridges are explicitly barred.

Restrictions to Permitted Development

Whether on the water or on land, Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 describes restrictions to permitted development (edited for brevity):

Directions restricting permitted development
    4.—(1)  If the [...] the appropriate local planning authority is satisfied that it is expedient that development described [...] in Schedule 2, [...] should not be carried out unless permission is granted for it on an application, [...] they may give a direction under this paragraph that the permission granted by article 3 shall not apply to—
    (a)  all or any development of the Part, Class or paragraph in question in an area specified in the direction; or
    (b)  any particular development, falling within that Part, Class or paragraph, which is specified in the direction, and the direction shall specify that it is made under this paragraph.
So the council has the power to override BW's permitted development power and require an application for planning permission.  Indeed that's exactly what has happened in Scotland.

Precedent for Council Intervention

Argyll and Bute Council recently challenged BW's permitted development on an inland waterway successfully and insisted on a retrospective planning application for works carried out. A section of pontoons at Bellanoch was rejected and had to be removed. The section on Determining Issues in Argyll and Bute Council Planning Department's report (06/00639/DET) begins:

An unauthorised extension to the pontoon system at Bellanoch was implemented by British Waterways in 2005. British Waterways claimed that a planning permission ought not to be necessary as such works were, in their view, exempt by virtue of the 'permitted development' rights afforded to inland navigation undertakings. The Council contested this, claiming that such rights only extended to the embarking and disembarking of passengers, the unloading of goods, and incidental activities associated with the transiting of the canal; rather than the longer-term mooring and storage of yachts.

In the event, British Waterways, agreed not to bring the pontoons into use and this retrospective planning application was submitted. [...] British Waterways have now agreed to remove a section of the new pontoons to reduce the number of individual moorings in the basin, ...

No recourse to the courts seems to have been necessary,  the council used the powers available to them.

Although this case was in Scotland, and therefore under a different legal system, the situation was similar in that Bellanoch is also  situated in a Conservation Area. As at Bellanoch, BWML has already started building new jetties without permission.

Car parking was also a significant issue in Bellanoch's case, as there was limited space for the cars the boats would inevitably bring.  

Land-Based Development

BWML acknowledges the need for planning permission for the chalets, caravan park, offices, shops, units, amenity block south of the canal, car park and new hard standing, where their permitted development powers do not apply.  Objections to this part of the development will be addressed elsewhere.

Environmental Impact Assessment

BWML claim that under their Permitted Rights Order they do not need to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment for the jetty workings and toilet block north of the canal. That is not necessarily so in the case of a marina development of this magnitude, and neither is it automatically true in a sensitive area such as a Conservation Area.

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, apply even to a project which is a Permitted Development, if it is judged that it might give rise to significant environmental effects. For a marina, this is so if the area of the enclosed water surface exceeds 1,000 square metres (Schedule 2 Table, 12(g)). Further, as the Communities and Local Government guide to EIA procedures explains:

The more environmentally sensitive the location, the more likely it is that the effects of development will be significant and that EIA will be required. That is why the thresholds and criteria do not apply where development is proposed in, or partly in, a `sensitive area' as defined in the Regulations. Such areas include Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Broads, World Heritage Sites and scheduled monuments. There is no general presumption that every Schedule 2 development in a sensitive area will require EIA. Nevertheless, in the case of development to be located in or close to SSSIs, especially those which are also international conservation sites such as Ramsar sites or Special Protection Areas for birds, the likely environmental effects will often be such as to require EIA.

As it is larger than 1000 square metres, virtually doubles the number of boats, and is situated in a Conservation Area surrounded on two sides by a SSSI and SAC,  BWML's proposed marina development at Glasson almost certainly requires an Environmental Impact Assessment open to public scrutiny.

Latest version of this page via www.philodor.f2s.com/Glasson