A number of different, but linked, concerns have been raised with us over the course of the past few months in relation to Beech Walk and the surrounding tracks in Standish. We can confirm that in investigating these concerns the Council has taken a holistic view of the situation and has considered whether the collective effect of the changes reported represents evidence of a legislative breach, even if individual aspects in isolation did not. For clarity here however, we have provided a commentary on each issue separately.
Surfacing of the tracks and use of the bridleway by vehicles
The physical surfacing of the tracks does not constitute “development” for the purposes of the planning legislation and did not require planning permission. This remains the case irrespective of whether the tracks are used by vehicles, or by how many. The Council has sought external legal advice on this point from a specialist planning barrister.
In relation to the suitability of the surface as a bridleway, the Council has provided guidance on appropriate surfacing materials based on those successfully implemented on other bridleways across the borough, including within the Standish area. It is our understanding that works along Beech Walk are ongoing and intended to bring the route up to a standard comparable with “The Line” bridleway in Standish, which has been used as a benchmark for suitability. We will continue to monitor the works as they progress to ensure the completed surface meets the expected standards for bridleway use, specifically in relation to equestrian concerns. It is important to note that the other surrounding tracks are not classified as bridleways and therefore we are unable to influence surface suitability for equestrian usage.
Regarding the width of the bridleway and any damage to the verge, the Definitive Statement for recorded public rights of way does not specify a defined width for this route. Any concern that the route may have been widened beyond its lawful extent, or about damage to adjoining verges, would therefore be a private civil matter between the relevant landowners rather than an issue on which the Council can take enforcement action.
The decision that the slurry store did not require planning permission
The Council confirmed that the installation of the slurry store was permitted development pursuant to application A/25/099033/AG. The case officer’s report, viewable online here, dealt with the question of whether any “protected buildings” existed within 400 metres of the proposed store. The farmhouse at Standish Hall Farm, to the north of the store, is within 400 metres of it, but is part of the agricultural unit: the named applicant is the same on both the planning permission for the farmhouse and the application for the slurry store, and it is clear that the property is occupied in this way. We can confirm that the nearest point of the curtilage of the closest property to the south east of the store (Upperwood Barn) is 400 metres from the store. This property is therefore not a protected building, irrespective of whether it forms part of any agricultural unit.
The Council is therefore satisfied that its decision under application A/25/099033/AG was correct, and that full planning permission was not required for the slurry store.
We are aware of residents’ concern that this decision did not take into account whether the use of the farm would intensify as a result, or whether it might encourage farm traffic to use Beech Walk. Unfortunately, the national permitted development regulations do not give any scope for these issues to be considered – there are specific criteria in the regulations, including the distance from residential buildings as referred to above, and provided all these are met, then the development is automatically permitted with no further assessment possible. We appreciate that this is frustrating for residents.
The first Prior Approval application for the slurry store was refused due to the application incorrectly quoting the site area of the immediate piece of land on which the store was to be constructed, rather than the area of the wider “separate parcel” within which it was located, which is what the regulations require. The second application corrected this technical error and accurately reflects the position.
We understand that residents may also have raised concerns about the operation of the slurry store with the Environment Agency. In investigating your concerns our officers did liaise with colleagues at the Agency, however ultimately the Agency works under a separate legal regime, and any further information or updates would be best sought from them directly.
Importation of slurry from another location
From the Council’s own observations and the information supplied by residents, it is evident that slurry has been brought onto the site from another location and stored in the recently built slurry store, with slurry from the store subsequently having been spread on the land at Standish Hall Farm. Residents have questioned whether this pattern of activity is compatible with the Council’s assessment that the slurry store comprised permitted development that was “reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture”. The barrister’s advice also covers this question and concludes that the slurry store does constitute permitted development, irrespective of whether slurry is being brought to it from another location.
In line with this, the Council’s conclusion is that the importation of material from the other site does not constitute a breach. This means that the Council has no control over it, including in relation to the number or pattern of vehicle movements.
Extraction of Mudstone
The mudstone being extracted at Standish Hall Farm is being used at another site that is owned and occupied for the purposes of agriculture by the same person. The two sites therefore form part of the same “agricultural unit” for the purposes of the planning legislation. There are national permitted development rights that allow the “winning and working” of minerals within the agricultural unit, for use for agricultural purposes within that unit. “Agricultural purposes” in this context can include works to buildings or structures. We are therefore content that the extraction and use of the mudstone in this way comprises permitted development, and does not need planning permission.
In reaching this conclusion, it is important to note that the planning legislation makes no consideration of whether the farmer owns the minerals or has the right to extract them; nor does it consider the scale of activity associated with the works or any matters relating to the transportation of materials. The question of ownership / extraction rights is a private matter for a landowner to enforce, and the Council would have no remit regarding this.
Vehicular Access Rights
Having reviewed the associated title registers, which relate to Standish Hall Farm, and following legal advice, the Council is satisfied that the owners of Standish Hall Farm, together with persons authorised by them, benefit from a lawful right of vehicular access over and along Beech Walk to School Lane, for all purposes. This right is not limited by vehicle type, size, or frequency, and therefore reasonably includes farm vehicles and associated agricultural machinery.
It is important to explain however that even if there was doubt as to the existence or scope of these access rights, there would be no legal basis for this to affect the Council’s position on any of the issues that have been raised. The passage of any vehicle along any section of the tracks is purely a matter of private access rights. The enforcement of these is for individual landowners as a civil matter and the Council has no role in this.
Similarly, historical use of access routes does not negate a lawful right of vehicular access over and along Beech Walk to School Lane, and therefore does not impact the stated position in regard to access rights.
While Beech Walk is also recorded as a public bridleway (Standish No. 43), it is important to note that there are many instances where different categories of highway exist on the same alignment. The presence of a public footpath or bridleway does not, in itself, prevent lawful motorised use where private vehicular rights also exist.
Enforcement action relating to bridleways under the Highways Act is limited to disturbance of a surface as to render it inconvenient, or to protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoy it, this relates to any obstruction that significantly interferes with the use of public rights of way. Therefore, current concerns raised around Beech Walk do not fall under an area of enforcement for the Highways Authority.
Intensification of vehicular movements
The intensification of private vehicular rights along a route that also carries public bridleway status is a private matter between the parties benefiting from and affected by those rights, rather than a matter for the local authority to determine. While the council has responsibilities in respect of the public right of way for non-motorised users as detailed above, any increase in the use or extent of private vehicular access, disputes or concerns regarding the scope, legality, or impact of that intensification should be addressed through private legal channels, such as between landowners or through the civil courts. Any intensification of a lawful private vehicular access is not an area of enforcement under the Highways Act and therefore the council are unable to take action.
As set out above, this position also applies in respect of the planning consideration of the various issues – given the clear conclusion that the works and activity comprise permitted development, intensity of use is not a relevant factor in relation to the track surfacing, the building of the slurry store, or the extraction and use of the mudstone.
Driving behaviour and road safety
The Council recognises the seriousness of the issues raised, particularly in relation to the interaction between vehicles and more vulnerable users of the bridleway, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
We appreciate the distress caused by the issues in relation to driving behaviour, including allegations relating to speeding, failure to give way, and intimidation that have been raised with us. However, these are matters governed by road traffic legislation. The Council does not have powers to enforce moving traffic offences in this instance, and such matters fall under the jurisdiction of Greater Manchester Police, who are the appropriate authority to investigate and take enforcement action where appropriate. We would therefore continue to encourage that any specific incidents are reported directly to them with supporting evidence where available.
We have discussed the concerns raised with GMP, who have provided some helpful context as to how issues such as these are approached. In order for the police to take action regarding speeding, the prosecution must show a speed limit was in force, that the defendant was driving a motor vehicle on a road or public place and that the vehicle exceeded the speed limit, although private tracks typically default to national speed limit which in this case would be 60mph. This has to be proven by evidence such as speed cameras, a police officer’s opinion corroborated by objective evidence (such as from a speed gun or a follow check), or in-car video systems.
For an offence of dangerous driving to be demonstrated, it must be proven the standard of driving fell far below that expected of a competent and careful driver, and that it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way was dangerous (“dangerous” in this context meaning that there is a risk of injury to a person or serious damage to property). Dangerous driving relies heavily on police officer observations, CCTV/bodycam/dashcam and / or witness evidence, and is dependent on context such as the nature of the road, weather conditions and traffic.
While we fully appreciate the safety issues you have raised and concerns that these may affect users’ enjoyment of the route, in locations where the available width is restricted, vehicle users are required to comply with the Highway Code and to give adequate time and space to more vulnerable users, as is expected in any area of unsegregated shared use. We hope you will appreciate that the Council is not in a position to directly enforce in relation to any of the concerns raised
However, in order to support the safety of users on the bridleway we will be installing some additional warning signs, and these are currently on order and will be installed in due course. Following requests from residents of Beech Walk, the Council has carefully considered whether a gate should be installed on the bridleway. We recognise that a gate may help manage access, slow vehicles when closed and discourage use of the route as a cut‑through, but as the Highways Authority, the Council cannot install a gate where lawful vehicular access rights exist, unless there are clear legal grounds, and unfortunately these have not been identified in this case. It there were legal grounds for installation, any gate could not be locked due to existing access rights. Furthermore, there is a risk that third parties may lock the gate without authority, potentially causing access issues and conflict. The location identified for the potential gate, considering the required width, ownership of land, and impact on neighbouring properties, was approximately 50-70m up from Longendale Road on Beech Walk, on the approach to Beech Crescent. Due to this location and stated restrictions, it was concluded that any positive impact of a proposed gate would be significantly reduced. Concerns were also raised regarding the impact of the gate on any emergency access and bridleway users during nighttime hours. While there are some potential benefits, there are also significant legal and practical constraints that mean the Council is unlikely to proceed with the installation of a gate.
Large stones have been placed at the Beech Walk/Green Lane end, by Standish Hall Farm, to alleviate ‘cut through’ concerns. If residents and users have concerns about these being in place please contact us.
Condition of Beech Walk
In respect of the condition of the bridleway, the Council, as Highway Authority, has a duty to ensure that public rights of way remain available and reasonably fit for their intended use by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. We have conducted a site inspection to assess the current condition, including reports of potholing, rutting and water accumulation.
However, it is important to clarify that the Council’s responsibilities differ from those on the adopted highway network. There is no requirement to maintain a bridleway to a standard suitable for motor vehicles. Responsibility for maintaining the surface to accommodate vehicular use rests with the landowner or those exercising any private vehicular access rights.
During the inspection, no defects were found to be at an actionable level and a passable route was available for all legitimate bridleway users to avoid the reported hazards. We will however continue to monitor the area.
Adoption of Beech Walk
We are not currently pursuing the adoption of Beech Walk due to a number of factors. These include, but are not limited to; adoption would result in Beech Walk becoming a public street open to all traffic, significant works and potential land acquisition would be required to bring it up to adoptable standards, and the need for all affected landowners to formally agree to dedicate the land to the Council.
With regard to parking and visibility issues at the junction with School Lane, the Council’s enforcement powers are limited to the adopted highway network, and we are therefore unable to take direct enforcement action in relation to parking within this area.
Environmental and Statutory Nuisance Concerns
An Officer has visited the site and assessed the manure pile highlighted to us in accordance with Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
In determining whether the matter constitutes a statutory nuisance, Officers consider the impact of the manure as stored on the land. During the visit, no strong odour was detected from the manure, nor were any other associated issues which would constitute a statutory nuisance observed. Previous visits undertaken by other Officers recorded similar observations.
For a matter to constitute a statutory nuisance, it must amount to, or be likely to amount to:
• A nuisance; and/or
• A condition that is prejudicial to health.
A nuisance is something that unreasonably and substantially interferes with a person's use or enjoyment of their property. It must be more than a minor annoyance or simply being aware of an activity or condition.
Based on the evidence available, the Council does not consider that the manure is causing a statutory nuisance. Consequently, there is no enforcement action available to the Council at this time.
We have however contacted the Environment Agency (EA) to discuss the matter further. The EA requested photographs and relevant information to enable them to assess the situation. The Officer has also contacted the landowner expressing your request for the manure to be removed, though we have no legal basis on which we can require its removal.
If you remain concerned that the manure is being stored in a manner that could result in environmental pollution, particularly affecting watercourses or groundwater, you may wish to raise the matter directly with the Environment Agency, which is the appropriate regulatory body for these issues.
In regard to noise and vibration concerns, investigations are ongoing and our Environmental Enforcement team will be in touch with complainants directly.
Temporary Event Notices
We can confirm that the planned event at Standish Hall Farm, highlighted to the Council by residents, will be required to apply for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN). The application will be processed in line with the procedure set down in the legislation. This will include consulting with Greater Manchester Police and the Council’s Environmental Protection Team. They are the statutory Responsible Authorities in respect of applications for Temporary Event Notices. Only Greater Manchester Police or the Council’s Environmental Protection Team can object to this application, on relevant grounds. We cannot legally accept objections from any other person, or organisation, as we are bound by the legislation when processing applications of this nature.
Options for Residents Consideration
The Council has considered a number of potential measures and undertaken initial assessments of each option. However, before progressing any further feasibility work, we would welcome residents’ views and feedback.
We have considered the installation of traffic calming measures, including speed bumps, on Beech Walk. While there are concerns regarding the noise and vibration these may cause, the requirement for landowner permission, and their overall effectiveness, they may offer a reduction in vehicles speeds.
We have also explored the possibility of diverting the Public Right of Way away from Beech Walk and onto an alternative route, with the aim of reducing interactions between vehicles and non-motorised users. Due to landownership constraints, this option may only be feasible between Public Rights of Way Standish 46 and Standish 50 (approximately between Longendale Road and Beech Crescent). However, this section of Beech Walk already benefits from relatively wide verge areas alongside the newly surfaced route, and therefore any additional benefits may be limited.
Similarly, we have also investigated the installation of passing places along Beech Walk. Although these may offer safe refuge for bridleway users, they could inadvertently encourage increased vehicular usage. Opportunities for installing passing places are also limited by landownership constraints and are largely restricted to sections that are already wider in nature.
At this stage, there is no certainty that the options outlined could be delivered, but if residents feel that any of these measures would be beneficial, we will explore the feasibility of the preferred options in more detail.
Outcome of our investigation
We have considered the cumulative effect of the issues observed, and it would appear from the information provided by residents, that the nature of the agricultural operation at Standish Hall Farm may have changed from that which has existed in the past. However, the Council is only able to enforce where there is a legal basis to do so. In view of all the above considerations, we need to advise that there is no breach of planning or highways legislation, and we have closed our enforcement case accordingly regarding these matters.
While we appreciate that you will be disappointed by this, we do recognise the deeply felt concerns that have been raised. Our approach has been to engage with all stakeholders to gain a full understanding of what is happening, and to test every option to respond to the issues raised. We are progressing the installation of more prominent signage, and we would be happy to consider your views as to the items highlighted above. Our team will respond directly to the complainants as regards the question of statutory nuisance. Alongside this we will naturally maintain an ongoing conversation with stakeholders in Standish, and we will continue to ensure that the relevant agencies are aware of any new or developing issues.
Should any concerns of a different nature be raised, then we will of course look into these matters.