1 Hammond Ground, Whalley Road, Read, Lancashire Bb12

HAMMOND GROUND, WHALLEY ROAD, READ, LANCASHIRE BB12 7QN

CONSULTATION STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

APRIL 2016

CONTENTS

Section Page 1.0 Overview 3 2.0 Planning Policy and 7 Guidance 3.0 Consultation Programme 9 4.0 Feedback received 12 5.0 Responses to the Public 17 6.0 Conclusions 20 7.0 Public Consultation 21 Photographs Appendix 1: Overview 25 Appendix 1.1 Invitees 26 Appendix 2: Invitation Letter 27 Appendix 3: Media Relations 28 Appendix 4: Display Boards 32 Appendix 5: Flyer & Reply 35 Form

1.0 Overview

Local landowners, the Trustees of Hammond Ground, are bringing forward plans for up to 50 new homes on land to the west of Read. The low density, high quality residential scheme addresses the identified needs of Ribble Valley Borough Council in providing bungalows for the over 55s, family homes and affordable houses, in a landscaped setting. New areas of public open space and a new pond will and a new pond will create wildflower meadow grassland and a new water wildlife habitat.

Latitude Studios Limited, Clitheroe, has been appointed to undertake a public consultation exercise regarding the Trustees proposals to gain feedback from the local community. All comments submitted during this consultation process will be taken into consideration in the preparation of the planning application to be submitted to Ribble Valley Borough Council in April 2016.

This Consultation Statement, submitted on behalf of the Trustees, outlines the community engagement undertaken on the plans for the site. This report details the pre-application consultation undertaken with residents, elected members and local businesses. A summary of the marketing programme is outlined below: i) A new brand was created for the scheme and extensive photography at both ground and aerial level taken.

4 ii) 3 x quarter page adverts were published in the local newspaper – the Lancashire Telegraph (both Blackburn and Burnley editions) on the 6/13/20th February 2016, inviting the public to a Consultation opportunity on Thursday 25th February, 2016. Posters were placed on lampposts and local businesses in Read to further promote the event.

. iii) Letters of invitation were personally sent to local Councillors and Officials of Ribble Valley Borough Council (including the Planning and Development Committee), Lancashire County Council and the Read and Simonstone Parish Councils. They were invited to a private opportunity to view the plans and receive literature in the hour before the event opened to the public and also to discuss any matters ahead in a meeting with members of the development team. Copies of the letters issued are included in Appendix 2.

5 iv) A press release was issued to the local media, the Clitheroe Advertiser & Times and the Lancashire Telegraph, to ensure that information about the plans would reach the wider community. The press release can be viewed at Appendix 3. v) A public exhibition was held from 1pm to 8pm on Thursday 25th February 2016 at the Read and Simonstone Constitutional Club, Whalley Road, Read. A central and well-known venue. A preview session was held for Borough and Parish Councillors and Officers of RVBC, between 12noon and 1pm. Photographs of the exhibition can be viewed from page 16 on.

· The exhibition allowed residents to view the draft proposals and meet with members of the development team who were on hand to listen and answer any questions about the scheme. A series of exhibition boards were displayed at the exhibition and copies are provided in Appendix 4.

· Questionnaires were available at the public exhibition to ascertain the views of attendees regarding the plans. The form asked a series of questions and provided a section for general comments. A copy of the questionnaire has been included at Appendix 5.

· A P.O. Box was established to receive written feedback and a designated e-mail, [email protected], was established to deal with any enquiries relating to the scheme and to meet requests for further information.

6 2.0 Planning Policy and Guidance

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 The principle legislation setting out the need for Local Planning Authorities to produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) is the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It outlines how local communities should be involved in the preparation of planning policy documents and development proposals within their area.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, March 2012) The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and confirms that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to sustainable development through the 3 main strands - economic, social and environmental. At para 66 of NPPF it sets out that applicants should work closely with those potentially affected by a development proposal and involve them in the design development process. It goes on to note that such proposals should be looked upon more favorably. Para 188 of NPPF refers to early involvement in the planning process has the potential to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system for all parties. Furthermore it allows for better co-ordination between public and private bodies, and improved outcomes for the community.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) In March 2014 central government published its Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The PPG acts as a sister document to NPPF and draws heavily on it and other relevant planning policy guidance. The PPG references pre-application engagement by prospective applicants offers significant potential to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system and improve the quality of planning applications and their likelihood of success. The PPG states that this can be achieved by: Providing an understanding of the relevant planning policies and other material considerations associated with a proposed development;

7 Working collaboratively and openly with interested parties at an early stage to identify, understand and seek to resolve issues associated with a proposed development; discussing the possible mitigation of the impact of a proposed development, including any planning conditions; identifying the information required to accompany a formal planning application, thus reducing the likelihood of delays at the validation stage; and identifying the information required to accompany a formal planning application, thus reducing the likelihood of delays at the validation stage.

RVBC: Statement of Community Involvement (SCI, October 2013) RVBC did their original SCI in 2007. This was updated in 2010 and again prior to the Core Strategy Examination. The 2013 SCI being the most recent version. Chapter 4 of the document advices on how to involve the public in the consultation process regarding development proposals for planning applications. This includes pre application discussions at the earliest stage. It also sets out how those with a major development proposal can engage with the public: • ‘Make their detailed proposals available for public view at the site (e.g. drawings, photo montages and sketches mounted on the site boundary). 3-D representations should be included where possible. • Circulate a leaflet outlining their proposals to local residents. • Arrange a meeting with groups in the community (e.g. Parish council, residents associations, interested parties, neighbours), giving sufficient advance notice • Keep a record of all consultation carried out, including correspondence, public notices, a record of persons attending exhibitions and meetings etc.

Developers are encouraged to submit a consultation statement with their planning application. This should include: • techniques employed to gain stakeholder comments; • summary of responses received; • main points of objection;

8 • other matters raised; • developer comments on the responses; • amendments made to the proposals as a result’

3.0 Consultation Programme

In line with the planning policy we have undertaken this consultation process to engage with the local community and to seek a wide range of views on the proposals, the engagement programme consisted of a number of elements:

INVITATION TO RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES AND COUNCILLORS Letters of invitation were sent to the ward councillors for the site, site adjacent ward members, members of the Planning and Development committee, the Leader of Ribble Valley Borough Council and key council officers to the public exhibition and preview session. A list of invitees can be found in Appendix 1 and copies of the letter, in Appendix 2.

PUBLICITY

Press releases A press release was issued to the local media after the consultation event to further engage with the wider community. The press release was issued to the Clitheroe Advertiser & Times and the Lancashire Telegraph. The press release and coverage it generated can be viewed at Appendix 3.

Poster An A4 poster, the same artwork as the advert seen earlier, outlining the details of the public exhibition were distributed to locations expected to have high footfall, the Read Pharmacy, Constitutional Club, Bakery, Sandwich shop, Petrol Station and Stork Hotel all of which are the main local businesses on the main road of Read. Additionally, posters were displayed on the Pedestrian Crossing and pavement lamp-posts nearby and on site.

COMMUNITY RESPONSES The public could forward their feedback by post at P.O.Box 204, Clitheroe BB7 0ET or by e mail at [email protected] until the closing date of Thursday 10th March. The choice of method of response was to reach the widest cross section of the community old and young.

PUBLIC EXHIBITION A public exhibition was held to allow local people to view the draft proposals and meet with members of the development team who were present throughout the exhibition to answer questions regarding the plans. The exhibition was held from 1pm until 8pm at Read and Simonstone Constitutional Club, Whalley Road, Read. This is a central location that was easily accessible for local people. A preview session was held between 12pm and 1pm for Borough and Town Councillors. 133 people attended the exhibition during the course of the day.

The exhibition consisted of two sets of six boards which provided details of the site’s location, outlined the proposals and the benefits the development would deliver, highlighted the accessibility of the site to local amenities, displayed an indicative masterplan image, as well as outlined how attendees to the exhibition could have their say on the plans and contribute to the development of the proposals.

Reply forms were available for those attending the exhibition to complete, either on the day or by post or e mail at a later date. During the course of the public consultation, 14 questionnaires were completed. In the 2011 census, the population of Read and Simonstone was 2,573 and therefore the attendance rate of 133 residents equates to 5.4% of the population. From 133 visitors only 14 people completed the reply form, a response rate of 10.5% reflecting 0.5% of the total population of Read and Simonstone.

10 The sample of responses provided can be seen below, including the only one reply posted via the P.O. box number. 88 visitors attended the Public Consultation between 12 and 6.30pm, including 10 Councillors and Officers between 12 and 1pm. The feedback from these visitors was largely positive and each person was given an individual tour and explanation of the boards on display.

45 visitors attended all together at approximately 6.45pm in what appeared to be an organized group. Led by a small number, of approximately five individuals, they took a more negative stance questioning the panel of experts on various issues. - In light of recent floods in Whalley, parts of Read, Padiham and further afield there was mention of the SuDs scheme and current Government guidelines for flood defenses. - Traffic was a major point, accidents, congestion at rush hour and a request to lower the speed limit at the access point, which is currently 40 changing to 30mph as you enter the village and the need for a Read bypass. - The rumours of a burial ground for soldiers from the Battle of Read Bridge, was raised. - The new housing development at Meadow View on Whins Lane, which is incomplete due to funding issues. - The definition of affordability was discussed and whether the over 55s would actually be able to afford the proposed bungalows was raised. - In general, comments about the amount of recent new development in Whalley, Barrow and Clitheroe, was highlighted.

- However, they were aware of the Core Strategy and the objectively assessed need for more housing in the Ribble Valley. - Infrastructure in terms of schools, the impending Library closure, doctors surgery capacity etc. was mentioned. - Reassurance of the quality and amount of the development - Residential amenity

11 4.0 Feedback Received i) Reply forms received on the consultation day – 12 objections to the proposals and 2 in favour.

3 questions were asked on the reply form and a final space for additional comments, here is a sample of the replies:-

Question 1 - Do you think there is a need for bungalows for the over 55s, high quality family housing and affordable properties?

“Affordable properties yes.”

Of the 14 responses only 3 were in favour of affordable housing but highlighted for the young people and 25 year olds also. They also cited only within the proportional limits of the infrastructure to support them. One response mentioned Meadow View in Read, a mixed development of affordable and privately owned houses where the more expensive larger houses have not sold, questioning whether there should be a mix?

“Young people these days, compared with younger people of the past, find it more difficult to afford more expensive houses. This is becoming a big problem.”

The other 11 responses in the main simply said no. A selection of comments is detailed below:

“We object to the plan and can see no reason for Read to be overloaded with unnecessary buildings. I have lived in the village 75 years and I definitely feel we have no support for such a proposition.”

“We object to the development but fear we are wasting our breath since it seems you have already given your approval. No shops, no Library, poor bus service also probably to be suspended.”

“It’s not necessary and not needed. The location doesn’t make sense.”

Question 2 – Please tell us what you think of the draft proposals, including what you like and dislike?

Two of the reply forms were left blank on this question. A selection of the other replies are seen below.

“The plans are very well thought out and well drawn.”

“I feel the access issues are of concern. Whalley Road is busy road with a high volume of traffic, particularly at rush hour periods. Traffic is travelling at 40mph at the proposed entrance and there are significant risks of accident, particularly when turning right onto Whalley Road. Is there any guarantee that the development will stop at 50 properties?’

“Good design but exit on to very busy road is questionable.”

“The site looks spacious.”

“It makes a total and utter mockery of the village.”

“We fundamentally object to the proposal.”

“Dislike all of it.”

“I object to the proposal.”

“We will really need a bypass and more traffic control.”

Question 3 – Are there any specific issues or areas for improvement that need

13 to be considered in the planning application?

“If the lake is placed there what happens when it over flows as recent events? It may flood the properties on the south side of Whalley Road!”

“Location.”

“Shouldn’t take place.”

“The whole application.”

“Views of residents.”

“Access to the site and risk of road traffic incidents. Increase in traffic. Will there be more pedestrian crossings? Can GP surgeries accommodate further patients? Can local school accommodate an increase in pupil numbers?”

Question 4 / Space to comment Please use the space below for any additional comments or suggestions you may have about the plans.

“Reassurance is needed that the development if approved will be completed as Meadow View on Whins Lane has not been and has been abandoned and is an eyesore. Traffic calming measures / bypass should be considered because of the increased risk of accident. Confirmation that the development will not be exceed 50 properties in the future.”

“We both object to the proposed housing development on Hammond Ground, Read as discussed at the consultation on 25th Feb 2016.”

“The proposed housing is outside the settlement boundary and exceeds Ribble Valley: Core Strategy. There are no amenities for the elderly, no doctors, either Whalley or Padiham. Poor bus service and shops.”

“What about schools, doctors, dentists, supermarkets and the run off into the rivers from the estate.”

“I would like to mention that, for a small community, Read, has very good facilities for cricket, soccer and crown green bowling, which are enjoyed by the community. We know that the numbers of children at schools are slowly increasing. I cannot visualize extra children having much room in the present schools at Read or Simonstone. Many thanks to the visitors for their excellent plans and for their help showing us round.”

“Concern about the drainage and sewerage from the area! We have no doctors, grocers, etc. in the village. Plenty of hairdresser’s beauty parlours! Concern about the increase in traffic generated as we can expect 2 cars per household at least. Is this the start of future development in this area?”

Four replies were received via [email protected], other than acceptances by Councillors and Officers regarding their attendance at the Consultation event, split equally in support/against and their replies are copied below:-

In Support:-

“We are very interested in the proposal for a development on Hammond Ground Read. As our aged parents live in the village (aged 86 and 90) we have been looking for suitable property in the area for over 2 years. Bungalows are very hard to come by in the area and as we get older ourselves (65 and 70) but have caring responsibilities for my parents, bungalows in this area are vital to help us keep my parents safe. Can you please add us to any mailing list you may have regarding the progress of this matter.”

“I refer to the proposed development site at Read. I personally think this would be beneficial to Read and be attractive to older past residents as we are, to return. The site appears to be senior residents friendly being close to Whalley Road and the local transport system with easy walking pathways. Although not currently residents of

15 Read. We personally are in favour of the proposed development.” In Opposition:-

“No, no, no please don't build any more house in the joint village of Read and Simonstone!

I object to this development for the following reasons:-

1. The traffic through the villages us already horrendous. There are often stationary queues, and getting out into the flow us nigh impossible especially at rush hours. More houses means more traffic.

2. With so many more houses, there will be extra pressure on the tiny schools, not built for such a large conurbation as thus is becoming. There is a finite amount of land for classrooms and playgrounds, and this is already at capacity, I would have thought.

3. Parking around the two schools is already a nightmare, without the further chaos of extra pupils' families' cars. Sometimes the roads are impassable. Much reversing and backtracking takes place daily. One day a child will be killed.

4. There is no Doctor in the village and all this extra housing is putting a strain on the current nearby practices at Padiham and Whalley, at a time when GP vacancies are increasingly hard to fill, due to stress and workload.

5. I find it distasteful that the development is planned upon an important ancient battle/ burial site. Surely we should be looking at preservation not destruction? To me this is tantamount to vandalism. We should leave it perhaps for future detailed, careful, scientific study, or just leave it, period! Too late when it has been bulldozed.

6. I see a pond is to be created as a beautification feature. How long before Health and Safety issues have it filled in and er...., magically built on, once initial planning permission is given. A pond is a daft idea, where there will be small children playing.

16 7. Why exactly does Ribble Valley suddenly feel it has to build on every green space? It is exactly these green spaces that make Ribble Valley so pastoral and beautiful. We will be concreting the Lake District next. There is already an appalling amount of house building taking place around Whalley and Clitheroe. Please, no more. I protest most strongly about this proposed development, and for the above reasons, hope fervently that it doesn't take place.”

“As a regular visitor to Read staying in George Lane with friends, I am absolutely appalled at the proposed development in the meadow next to their property. The view is staggering and I am firmly of the opinion that any buildings in the way will not only destroy the view but will have a very serious detrimental affect on the value of their property, not to mention the peacefulness of the site. Another, in my opinion, very serious problem is access into Whalley Road from George Lane, especially when attempting to turn right, on many occasions I have had to wait over 10 minutes to safely join the traffic flow, further traffic can only increase the problem and surely would be a safety issue. I urge you to reject this proposal, based not on nimbyism but on commonsense and respect for the ancient burial ground.”

5.0 Responses to Public Comment

The key areas highlighted during the consultation event can be summarised below with our responses to each point raised:-

• Access Site access design has been discussed and agreed with Lancashire County Council as the Highway Authority. Access to the site does not present an issue and full details are included in the Transport Statement submitted with this application.

• Traffic The issue on speed and collision has already been taken into account in the transport statement. The additional volume of traffic from the site has been assessed and will not cause any issues of congestion. Full details are included in the transport statement.

Mention was made of the need for a Read bypass, this is not a matter for this application. Also policy T5 of the RVBC Local Plan referring to the Read/Simonstone bypass has been removed as a designation.

• Affordability

The scheme includes affordable houses in line with the current requirements set out in the Ribble Valley Core Strategy.

• Flooding

There is no evidence of flooding on the site and the proposal includes a SuDs scheme. Full details are in the accompanying Flood Risk Assessment Report.

• Delivery of the development

The housing mix proposed has been assessed against the current market demand and the Council’s requirements to provide more homes for the aging population in the form of bungalows and to provide affordable homes as well as market value homes.

Comments were made about the Whins Lane scheme not being completed, which we understand is the result of the developer’s own financial position, but is not a relevant planning consideration in regard to consideration of this proposal.

• Residential amenity

The position of the bungalows and houses take into account the topography and are harmonious in their siting. The proposal also includes additional new landscaping. Full details are set out in the Design and Access Statement and Landscaping Statement, accompanying this application.

18 • Quality of the proposed development

The low density, high quality residential scheme addresses the identified needs of Ribble Valley Borough Council in providing bungalows for the over 55s, family homes and affordable houses, in a landscape setting. New areas of public open space and a new pond will create wildflower meadow grassland and a new water wildlife habitat.

• Services and facilities

Read/Simonstone is identified as a Tier 1 sustainable settlement in the RVBC Core Strategy. A plan showing the services and facilities in Read/Simonstone is included in the accompanying D&A statement. This proposal is a sustainable location immediately abutting the settlement boundary of Read/Simonstone. Issues regarding school provision will be considered by the LEA as a statutory consultee on such applications and if shown to be necessary covered by S106 contributions.

• Battle/burial ground

These seem to be rumours and we have conducted extensive research and identified the battle site lies some fields away to the west, near the double bend on Whalley Road on the far side of Read Hall from this site. We have found no mention of a burial ground.

6.0 Conclusions

Pre application engagement is strongly encouraged by National and Local policy. As responsible landowners the Trustees have embraced this opportunity to engage with the local community in order to deliver this highly sustainable development.

Public consultation by way of an exhibition was undertaken and properly advertised in the press and on posters around Read and Simonstone in the run up to the event. Formal invitations were sent to the Councillors and Officers inviting them to a preview ahead of the main event and an opportunity to discuss in private ahead of the day via a meeting if required.

Having advertised this proposal throughout Read/Simonstone to its 2573 residents, 133 attended the exhibition at the Read and Simonstone Constitutional Club on Thursday 25th February 2016, between 1pm and 8pm. In total, including after the event, 18 responses have been received (including after the event) five in favour, the remainder against.

The comments and issues have been considered and addressed where possible in the layout or the various technical reports in support of this application, prior to the submission of this proposal.

7.0 Public Consultation Photographs

24 APPENDIX 1.

HAMMOND GROUND SITE WITH OVERLAY

25 APPENDIX 1.1 INVITED COUNCILLORS & OFFICERS

Title Name Surname Ward Cllr Stuart Hirst Leader of the Council Mayor Bridget Hilton Mayor of Ribble Valley Mr John Heap Director of Community Services Mr John Macholc Head of Planning Services Senior Planning Officer Development Mr Colin Sharpe Committee Ms Rachel Stott Strategic Housing Officier Cllr. Marshall Scott Chief Executive RVBC Cllr. Gillian Rostron Read Parish Councillors Cllr. Peter Collinge Read Parish Councillors Cllr. Richard Hanson Read Parish Councillors Cllr. William Harrison Read Parish Councillors Ms Shirley Bridge Read Parish Council Parish Clerk

Cllr. Albert Atkinson County Councillor Chairman Planning & Development Cllr. Susan Bibby Committee Vice Chairman Planning & Development Cllr. Ian Sayers Committee Ms. Clare Farrer LCC Highways

Cllr. Stephen Atkinson Planning & Development Committee Cllr. Alison Brown Planning & Development Committee Cllr. Ian Brown Planning & Development Committee

Cllr. Stuart Carefoot Planning & Development Committee Cllr. Ged Mirfin Planning & Development Committee Cllr. James Rogerson Planning & Development Committee

Cllr. Richard Sherras Planning & Development Committee Cllr. Rupert Swarbrick Planning & Development Committee Cllr. Doreen Taylor Planning & Development Committee Cllr. Robert Thompson Planning & Development Committee Cllr. Mark French Planning & Development Committee Cllr. Susan Knox Planning & Development Committee Vice Chairman Simonstone Parish Cllr. Graham Moley Council

APPENDIX 2 INVITATION LETTER

APPENDIX 3

MEDIA RELATIONS

PRESS RELEASE sent to Lancashire Telegraph and Clitheroe Advertiser

Hammond Ground Public Consultation Opportunity

Local landowners have announced proposals to deliver new homes in Read at Hammond Ground and on Thursday 25th February, between 1pm and 8pm, a Public Consultation event took place at the Read and Simonstone Constitutional Club, Whalley Road, Read. Ahead of submitting an outline application to Ribble Valley Borough Council, the Trustees wanted to hear the views of local people regarding the proposals and hence the public exhibition was arranged to allow the community to find out more about the plans. Feedback forms were collected at the event and there is still an opportunity to respond to [email protected] or by post to P.O. box 204, Clitheroe BB7 0ET.

The Trustees of Hammond Ground are bringing forward plans for up to 50 new homes on land to the west of Read. The low density, high quality residential scheme addresses the identified needs of Ribble Valley Borough Council in providing bungalows for the over 55s, family homes and affordable houses, including catering to the older population in a landscape setting. New areas of public open space and a new pond will create wildflower meadow grassland and a new water wildlife habitat.

The development ‘Hammond Ground’ will offer an attractive, very low density residential extension to the village, that has been designed to reflect the character of the area and existing properties in Read with extensive landscaping throughout the scheme. Hammond Ground is ideally located to deliver a highly sustainable development benefitting from being close to existing local shops and services in Read village, as well as excellent transport links.

28 The Hammond Ground residential proposal responds to a Ribble Valley Borough Council policy and ongoing strategy recognising the housing need shortfall in regard to catering to an aging population. As a result of their recent needs assessment they amended their strategy in September 2015 to positively encourage more bungalows for the over 55s. They state, socially the additional type of houses would make a significant contribution to objectively assessed identified housing needs in Read and Simonstone, thus fulfilling the aspirations of the Council and the need for compliant bungalows for the over 55s built to Lifetime Homes standards.

New homes in Read will also deliver benefits for the wider community. The site’s new residents will bring more trade for shops and services, creating knock-on benefits for the local economy. Employment opportunities will also be created during the construction of the development.

29 CLITHEROE ADVERTISER & TIMES Thursday 12th March 2016

30 LANCASHIRE TELEGRAPH – Wednesday 9th March 2016

31 APPENDIX 4. PUBLIC CONSULTATION DISPLAY BOARDS

APPENDIX 5

34 4-PAGE FLYER & REPLY FORM