Yoga retreat in Green Belt refused by council

West Lancashire Borough Council refused a retrospective planning application for a yoga retreat behind 3 Broad Lane, Downholland, citing harm to Green Belt openness and the loss of Grade 2 agricultural land; the applicant may appeal.

West Lancashire Borough Council has refused retrospective planning permission for land behind 3 Broad Lane, Downholland, where a small building and outdoor facilities have been used for yoga and related activities. The applicant, Darren Harvey, sought approval for a 670 sq ft building with three yoga studios, a w/c and shower, and a control room, plus parking, a wildflower meadow, pond, orchard, beekeeping and an open‑sided shelter. Supporters described the site as a sanctuary and said it provided tranquil space used by local groups including Wild Warrior Women. The council concluded the development was inappropriate in the Green Belt and issued a refusal on planning policy grounds. Decision details: - West Lancashire Borough Council refused a retrospective application for approximately 0.85 hectares (2.1 acres) of land to the rear of 3 Broad Lane, Downholland. - The building on site measures about 670 square feet within a total site area of 2.08 acres and was used for three yoga studios and supporting facilities. - Local users and community groups submitted letters of support, saying the space supports wellbeing and offers confidential support for some women. - The council's reasons for refusal included harm to the openness of the Green Belt with no identified very special circumstances, loss of Grade 2 agricultural land, an unsustainable rural location with limited public transport, harmful levels of hardstanding affecting character, and likely noise and disturbance to neighbours. - The applicant said the works were carried out believing they qualified as permitted development; Mr Harvey has the option to appeal the decision. Summary: The council’s refusal prevents regularisation of the existing facilities under the submitted application and rests on multiple local plan policy concerns including Green Belt impact and loss of agricultural land. Supporters highlighted community and wellbeing benefits of the site, while the council judged those did not outweigh the identified planning harms. Mr Harvey may appeal the decision; any appeal timetable was not stated.