JFP
FI Real Estate Management
PROPOSED BOTANY BAY BUSINESS PARK
Planning Statement in Support of Planning Application for Employment and Commercial Uses
March 2021
JFP John Francis Planning Ltd
1 | P a g e
CONTENTS Page
1. Introduction 3.
2. The Site 5.
3. Background on Planning Application 8.
4. Proposed Development 10.
5. Pre-application Meeting and EIA Screening 13.
6. Pre-application Consultation 15.
7. Planning Framework 17.
8. The Case in Support of the Planning application 25.
9. Overall Conclusions 43.
2 | P a g e
1. INTRODUCTION
Background
1.1 This planning statement has been prepared by JFP on behalf of FI Real Estate Management Ltd (“FIREM/applicant”) in support of its hybrid planning application (“planning application”) to Chorley Council (“council”) for an employment and commercial development known as Botany Bay Business Park (“Botany Bay Business Park/proposed development”) on land known locally, including by the council, as Botany Bay (“Botany Bay/site”).
1.2 The description of development on the planning application form is as follows:
‘Hybrid planning application seeking detailed and outline planning permission for the development of Botany Bay Business Park comprising development of Blocks A to J (37,661 sqm GIA) as follows: detailed planning permission is sought for Blocks C to J (36,996 sqm GIA) for Use Classes E (light industry only), B2 and B8; retention and improvements to existing vehicular access into site off A674; retention of closed access into site from the south (for emergency vehicle access only); new main and secondary circulation roads; servicing and circulation yards and HGV parking; car parking; pedestrian routes; landscaping and public realm; provision and upgrading of ancillary services and infrastructure and diversion of PROW FP26; and outline planning permission for Block A (181 sqm) for Use Class E (food and drink)/sui generis (hot food takeaway) and Block B (484 sqm) for Use Class E and related access, car parking, circulation and landscaping.’
Purpose of Statement
1.3 The statement profiles the site, describes the proposed development, sets out the reasons for the making of the planning application, describes the planning framework applying to the site and sets out the planning case in support of the planning application and proposed development it seeks permission for.
Planning Application Pack
1.4 The planning application package comprises the following items and support documents:
• Requisite planning application form and certificate. • Red line planning application site plan (MCAU). • Application fee (£85,535). • Covering letter (JFP). • Drawings pack (MCAU). • Design and access statement (“DAS”) MCAU)). • Planning statement (JFP). • Environmental statement compliance statement (JFP). • Economic benefits statement (JFP). • Sequential and retail assessment (JFP). • Social values statement (JFP). • Section 106 heads of terms (JFP). • Statement of community involvement (JFP).
3 | P a g e
• Crime impact statement (Lancashire Police) • Transport assessment (Curtins). • Green travel plan (in transport assessment (Curtins)). • Air quality report (Bureau Veritas). • Flood risk assessment and drainage strategy (Integra Consulting). • Ecology statement (Bowland Ecology). • Arboriculture report (Bowland Ecology). • Ground condition report (Integra Consulting). • Service and utilities report (Murphy Young). • Landscape and visual impact assessment (Tyler Grange). • Noise report (Bureau Veritas). • Waste management statement (FIREM). • Employment land report (FIREM). • Heritage and archaeology statement (Orion). • Energy statement (Energy Council). • Lighting strategy (Davies Partnership). Scope of Statement
1.5 The scope of the statement is as follows:
• In section 2 we describe the application site. • In section 3 we set out useful background on the planning application. • In section 4 we describe the proposed development • In section 5 we consider pre-application advice and EIA screening. • In section 6 we describe pre-application community consultation. • In section 7 we set out the planning framework applying to the site. • In section 8 we set out our planning assessment of the proposed development. • In section 9 we set out our conclusions on the matters address in the statement.
4 | P a g e
2. THE SITE
2.1 We recommend that the plans, visual images and photographs contained in the DAS by MCAU are considered before reading this section of the statement as they provide useful contexts on the site.
Basics
2.2 The proposed application site extends to 8.7 hectares.
2.3 The address of the site is: Canal Mill, Botany Brow, Chorley, Lancashire, PR6 9AF.
2.4 The site is located due east of Junction 8 of the M61 Motorway and south of the roundabout on A674 which provides the main vehicular access into the site.
2.5 As already confirmed, the site falls within the administrative area of Chorley Council and is within the ward of Chorley North East.
Topography
2.6 In terms of its topography, the site lies at 91m AOD, and can be regarded as flat. Where there is a change in levels this directly correlates to part of the site’s western and northern boundaries where the site interfaces with the M61 and A674 which sees the main platform of the site rise by approximately 2m through an increasingly rising embankment to meet the levels of the two roads.
Boundaries
2.7 Along the western boundary of the site with the M61 Motorway there is an existing tree buffer running from the ridge to roughly the bottom of the retaining site and the motorway.
2.8 The northern extent of the site tapers from the site’s boundary with the M61 into the south eastern boundary of the A647 culminating at the roundabout from which the site access that serves the site runs southwards.
2.9 To its east the site adjoins the Leeds Liverpool Canal and its towpath.
Existing Uses
2.10 In terms of existing uses, running from north to south, the site is undeveloped apart from Canal Mill (Botany Bay). North of Canal Mill the land is given over to formal and informal areas of car parking associated with the former retail and leisure use of the mill building and weekend car boot sales.
2.11 South of Canal Mill the site comprises further areas of hard standing which are also used for car parking associated with the use of Canal Mill.
2.12 The main site related identifying feature of the site is Canal Mill which is a red brick with extensive fenestration mainly five storey former industrial building (used for textile manufacture) constructed in the mid-19th Century. In more recent times it was used for leisure and retail purposes and as offices. The retail and leisure uses have ceased over the
5 | P a g e
last twelve months due to the owner’s long-term plans for the site as covered through this EIA screening letter. Part of the building continues to be sued for offices (they are current HQ of FIREM. Surrounding Uses
2.13 In terms of surrounding uses and features, to north is the A674 and beyond this undeveloped land currently used for agriculture. To the east is the canal and beyond this agricultural land rising towards the east and Blackburn Road Great Knowley. The site's western boundary is clearly defined by the edge of highway land associated with the M61 Motorway. Beyond the motorway is the eastern fringes of the main developed conurbation of Chorley (industrial estate and residential estates).
Public Rights of Way
2.14 Reference to the County Council’s definitive footpath and public rights of way (“PROW”) map confirms that PROW 9-2-FP26 (footpath) crosses the site, running along a north west to south east axis. To the north west, the footpath links to an existing gate in the site’s boundary fence from the roundabout to the north which forms part of Junction 5 of the M61. It then follows a former field boundary line to connect with the canal towpath towards the south east. Following a short run northwards up the canal towpath, up to where the footpath reaches a bridge, Knowley Bridge, it crosses the canal, and then runs eastwards to Blackburn Road/Great Knowley.
Drainage and Flood Risk
2.15 An onsite drainage ditch runs across the site along this PROW. This is mainly culverted where it crosses the Site.
2.16 Reference to the Environment Agency (“EA”) flood risk map of England confirms that the site in its entirety is located in Flood Zone 1.
Accessibility
2.17 In terms of the site’s accessibility profile, the site is well-located vis a vis its relationship to the motorway and primary road network (M61 and A674). It should also be noted that the M61 provides direct access to the M6, M60 and M65. Regarding accessibility to public transport, Chorley Train Station lies approximately 2.2 km towards the south east of the application site and Buckshaw Parkway Train Station is located approximately 2.4 kilometres to the west of the site. Both stations provide services to Manchester and Preston. Both are linked via A674 and related routes. In addition, bus stops are located 400m to the east of the site on Blackburn Road and provide services to Chorley and Blackburn Town Centres.
Planning History
2.18 There are a number of planning applications that relate to the site and the Botany Bay Mill building although as has already been confirmed this is excluded from the application site. Instead, as it is owned by the applicant, it forms part of the blue line area. The majority of these planning applications relate to the use of the former mill building for offices, retail and
6 | P a g e
leisure uses. In the main these applications are not considered relevant to the current planning application.
2.19 A planning application that is considered relevant is outline planning application ref no. 17/00715/OUTMAJ for a retail biased mixed-use development at the Botany Bay Site.
2.20 This application was a hybrid application. It sought ought planning permission for retail floorspace (Use Classes A1, A3, A4 & A5), hotel (Use class C1), crèche/ nursery (use Class D1) and provision of associated car parking highways, landscaping and infrastructure and any ancillary development thereto, with all matters reserved except for access which is proposed off the existing A674 roundabout. Full planning permission was sought for demolition (as applied for) of on- site structures and the change of use of the retained building (Use Classes A1, A3, B1, C1, D1). Outline permission was granted on 21st October 2019.
2.21 It should be noted that this planning application was part of a trio of applications made at the same time. The other two applications were also made in outline form and were as follows outline application ref no. 17/00714/OUTMAJ for residential on land to the east of the Botany Bay Site (“Great Knowley Site”) and outline planning application ref no. 17/00713/OUTMAJ for employment development on land north of the Botany Bay Site and A674.
2.22 These outline applications were granted outline planning permission in October 219. Neither has been progressed in the sense that reserved matters have not been submitted for either application.
2.23 More recently, in the summer of 2020, FIREM secured a secured a resolution to grant planning permission subject to planning conditions and a s106 agreement for a s73 application to increase the numbers of dwellings from 188 to 233. We understand that discussions are underway on the legal agreement.
2.24 Prior to submission of the trio of outline applications outlined above, and following an Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) screening request under the EIA Regulations, the council determined that, as the overall scheme was a single comprehensive development and was being promoted through three separate applications, the applications should be made at the same time and supported by an Environmental Statement (“ES”) setting out the findings of an EIA of the overall scheme.
7 | P a g e
3. BACKGROUND ON THE PLANNING APPLICATION Reason for the Current Application
3.1 Since securing outline planning permission ref no. 17/00715/OUTMAJ in autumn 2019, the scheme for which is covered in the previous section, FIREM has been forced to review its options for the site. This is by reference to several issues but most notably the lack of market interest in the scheme granted under this planning permission. As has already been confirmed the main use that underpinned this scheme is retail.
3.2 The retail sector has been in decline in recent years and it is currently generally in a very poor state of health, a position exacerbated by Covid-19 issues. Indeed, in September 2020 the Government changed the Use Classes Order to assist in trying to regenerate dying town centres and high streets. This is through the introduction of Class E which subsumes the old Class A and Class B and elements of both D1 and D2 Classes so as to create flexibility as to how buildings in these classes can be used.
3.3 Prospects of the difficulties and issues facing retailing changing in the foreseeable future are not good, and FIREM can confirm that the anchor tenants for the old scheme fell away some time ago. Currently, what market interest there is in the old outline planning permission is very poor. As such this scheme has to be regarded as unviable and undeliverable.
3.4 Although in many respects this set of circumstances and resultant outcomes is unfortunate, it has also meant that other avenues have had to be investigated. This has resulted in a new development strategy being defined for the site. This has also coincided with changes to the corporate approach and operational targets of FIREM’s business model, which sees the business wanting to get more involved in developing and holding onto (as investments) employment and commercial developments like the one that is currently being contemplated for the Botany Bay site.
3.5 Coinciding with FIREM’s new business drive and focus, FIREM has identified, verified and confirmed by its marketing agents, that there is currently strong demand for employment and commercial floorspace (Use Classes E and B2 and B8) in this area of Lancashire.
3.6 The site is ideally located and profiled for a major mixed employment and commercial uses development; indeed its planning policy designation specifically supports uses of this ilk. Benefits of New Planning and Development Strategy for Botany Bay
3.7 There are a number of differences between the old and current planning strategy for the site.
3.8 First, the old scheme was for different uses. The main use was retail supported by leisure and some commercial uses. The amount of retail proposed was significant. The development provided the potential for significant impacts associated with the transportation needs of the proposed development. It should also be noted that the use was not fully policy compliant.
3.9 Second, the former application for the site was promoted alongside applications for two other adjoining sites as already confirmed. The impacts and effects of the other developments were less than the scheme for the Botany Bay Site, but even when all were considered together (cumulative effects) all three of the applications were found to be acceptable.
8 | P a g e
3.10 The site for residential was recently the subject of a new application also for residential but for a different total of units and through a revised layout (233 from 188). This application secured a resolution to grant when it was determined by the Council’s planning committee in late August 2020.
3.11 We understand that the development for employment at the other site referred to earlier will in time be brought forward for the form of development granted under the planning permission applying to that site.
3.12 The effect of the current proposals for Botany Bay mean that the proposed uses for this site will be brought more back in line with the planning policy allocation for the site in the development plan than was the case with the old scheme. As a consequence of this the proposed uses under the current application, particularly, when compared to high impacting developments like retailing, will have a considerably reduced impact, particularly on the local highway network. And other aspects of the proposals, particularly employment generation will be positive in a beneficial sense.
9 | P a g e
4. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
4.1 The development is depicted and described in detail in the planning application drawings pack and the DAS by MCAU.
4.2 The key layout plans are Drawing Ref Nos. 02-002 and 02-003. The full description of development as set out on the planning application form is included at paragraph 1.2 of the planning statement.
Basic Scheme Description
4.3 The proposed development is for a modern high quality business park (Botany Bay Business Park).
4.4 The business park development will comprise 10 independent blocks of development comprising 33 individual units. Some of the blocks of development are units in their own right. All units are for employment and commercial uses.
4.5 The existing former mill building is to be retained in its existing form. Replacement parking will be provided for users of Canal Mill.
4.6 The historic permitted use of parts of the mill for retail and food and drink uses, which ceased operations some years ago, will not be reintroduced.
Main Elements of the Proposal
Proposed Blocks of Development
4.7 The overall business park development comprises 10 blocks of development (Blocks A – J) which will accommodate 33 individual units. Floorspace details are as follows:
• 37,661 sqm (GIA) of total floorspace (Blocks A-J). • 36,996 sqm (GIA) of employment floorspace (Blocks C-J). • 665 sqm (GIA) of commercial floorspace (Blocks A-B).
Proposed Uses
4.8 Block A is for use as Class E (retail or food and drink) and/or sui-generis (fast food takeaway). Block B is for commercial uses covered under Class E (retail and food and drink uses). Blocks C-J are for employment uses in the form of Class E (light industry only), Use Class B2 (general industry) and Use Class B8 (warehousing).
Floorspace Profiles of Proposed Blocks of Development
4.9 Floorspace details of all proposed blocks of development (Block A – J) are as follows:
Block Unit Floorspace (Sqm) Total for Block (Sqm) A A1 181 181 B B2 121
10 | P a g e
B3 121 B4 121 B5 121 484 C C1 409.9 C2 359.9 C3 359.9 C4 359.9 C5 333.9 C6 333.9 C7 333.9 C8 333.9 2,465.3 D D1 359.9 D2 359.9 D3 359.9 D4 359.9 D5 359.9 D6 359.9 2,159.4 E E1 15,282 15,282 F F1 5,620 5,620 G G1 4,268 4,268 H H1 1,609.7 1,609.7 I i1 829.9 i2 748.9 i3 643.9 i4 529.9 2,752.6 J J1 548.9 J2 432.9 J3 432.0 J4 432.9 J5 515.9 J6 315.9 2,479.4 Total 37,661.3
Design of Units
4.10 The units themselves will be high quality but typical of modern industrial units in terms of design and the palette of materials that will be used. However, so as to complement the past industrial heritage of the site and wider local area a simple material palette is proposed. The material palette will reflect the original mill building and the former warehousing that stood on the site but with the intention of creating a series of contemporary warehouse buildings that read cohesively.
4.11 Units themselves will utilise main cladding panels which will be vertical composite cladding panel. The colour will be light grey to be confirmed.
4.12 The colour of feature cladding panels, which will involve use of small ribbed horizontal cladding panels, are to be confirmed.
4.13 Windows and doors within main cladding panels will be powder coated aluminium. Colour wise this will be to match main cladding panels.
11 | P a g e
4.14 Windows and doors within feature panels will be powder coated aluminium. Colour wise this will match feature cladding panels.
4.15 Steel roller shutter doors will be in contrasting grey colour details of which are to be confirmed.
Access and Transportation Elements
4.16 The proposed main vehicular access into the site will utilise the main existing access road into site off the existing roundabout on A674. This will feed a main internal circulation road running north to south that will serve secondary access roads and cul-de-sacs serving individual blocks of development.
4.17 Although this road will run as far as/out of the southern boundary of the site and facilitates vehicular access onto Botany Brow/Blackburn Brow it should be noted that the road will be gated and only made available for emergency vehicle use. There will be no general vehicular access into the site from the south.
4.18 The individual units will be served by dedicated loading and unloading areas/bays and yard/circulation areas plus dedicated car parking. In total dedicated car parking comprises 425 spaces.
4.19 Due to even local terrain the site and surrounding area is approximately level and the proposed development will ensure that level access is provided across all pedestrian footpaths and shared spaces.
4.20 Pedestrians will be encouraged by the incorporation of footpaths to the main arterial routes within the development. A new pedestrian access gate will be provided to allow access into the site from the existing bus stop to the south of the site.
4.21 The town centre of Chorley is within easy walking distance from the site and can be accessed either out of the southern entrance, which while this will be closed to vehicular traffic, will be open for pedestrian access, or via the main access road and A674 route into Chorley.
Landscaping
4.22 In principle, areas of landscaped open space as well as smaller pockets of landscaping will be incorporated at regular intervals throughout the site.
4.23 The landscaping will be designed to enhance the setting of the development and species used will be selected in accordance with their suitability for the buildings that they will be sited adjacent to.
4.24 Around the periphery of the site there are grass and shrubbery areas, which will be retained as much as possible part of this application. Within the site there are proposed a small number of less developed trees on grassed areas.
12 | P a g e
5. PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION AND EIA SCREENING
Pre-application Discussions with the Council
5.1 It was always the applicant’s intention to seek formal pre-application advice on the proposed development but when this was sought in late August 2020 the council had withdrawn its pre- application advice service due to the implications of Covid-19. However, informal discussions had already taken place with the council in the earlier part of 2020. In addition, in the late summer of 2020 the council committed to provide informal pre-application advice on a number of key aspects of the scheme.
5.2 In the main, historic discussions focused on:
• Updating council on status of planning permission ref no. 17/00715/OUTMAJ including prospects of this being implemented. • Process that FIREM was going through the consider an alternative scheme for the site. • Emerging planning policy framework for the site and surrounding area (new Central Lancashire Local Plan). • Emerging plans for a more employment and commercial biased scheme for the site. • Need for EIA. • Desire for pre-application advice. • How community consultation might be handled. • Possible timing and programme considerations.
5.3 More recent informal pre-application discussions focused on the following topics:
• Scheme concept – employment village for employment and commercial uses. • Discussion on proposed uses. • Number of blocks of development proposed. • Level of floorspace/sizes of blocks of development and composite units proposed. • Proposed access and circulation. • Transportation considerations. • Other features of the proposed development. • Operation of the proposed units. • Potential operational impacts/issues with operation. • Type of planning application (hybrid). • Validation needs. • Use of planning conditions. • Need for s106 agreement. • Planned community consultation. • Timing of planning application.
5.4 Feedback from these sessions has been taken into account and incorporated into the proposed development and/or reflected in the overall planning application submission.
EIA SCREENING
5.5 The applicant sought Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) screening opinion from the council in accordance with the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 on 25th August 2020.
13 | P a g e
5.6 The council responded in letter form on 30th November 2020. This confirmed that the proposed development fell within the description of development covered by Schedule 2 Developments of the Regulations (Category 10: Infrastructure projects; (a) Industrial estate development projects; area of the development exceeds 0.5 hectare).
5.7 The council was of the opinion that under normal circumstances an EIA would be required. However, in this instance an Environmental Statement Compliance Statement (“ESCS/ECS”) would be sufficient if the ESCS could demonstrate that the revised development proposals fell within the scope of the EIA used to support consented planning application ref no. 17/00715/OUTMAJ. This was made at the same time as two related planning applications, namely applications ref nos. 17/00715/OUTMAJ and17/00715/OUTMAJ. All three applications were supported by the EIA in question. These planning applications and the developments they permitted were described earlier in Section 3.
Pre-application Community Consultation
5.8 Also with the support and agreement of the council the applicants carried out formal pre- application community consultation on the proposed development in early November 2020.
5.9 This utilised an online exhibition which saw the local community invited to review and provide comments on the proposed development via an online response service. Comments and feedback received were taken into account prior to the application being made.
5.10 Although the statement of community involvement by JFP submitted in support of the application provides full details on the initiative and summarises comments and feedback received; we provided a more detail summary in the following section of the statement.
14 | P a g e
6. PRE-APPLICATION COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Background
6.1 The trio of planning applications referred to in section 3 of which planning application ref no. 17/00715/OUTMAJ applied directly to the application site were made the subject of a community consultation exercise in 2017. This was through a conventional consultation exercise which involved a manned exhibition.
6.2 The applicants recognised the importance of undertaking further consultation given that the original exercise concerned a different form of commercial development and in light of local interest in the site. Through informal and formal discussions with the council, influenced by the fact that Covid-19 conditions still prevailed, it was agreed that the best and most appropriate approach would be to host an exhibition of the proposed development through an online dedicated website.
Target Audience
6.3 The target audience was households and businesses in a wide defined area around the site including Great Knowley and the north western residential/industrial areas of Chorley. Some 1,508 households/businesses were invited to comment on the draft proposals via letter delivered to their homes/premises. On-line Exhibition
6.4 The on-line exhibition provided details on the scheme and had other features as follows:
• Set out why a new planning application was being contemplated. • Set out why the old scheme did not work in commercial terms. • Set out why a new scheme was being contemplated. • Set out details of the site and the basis for the proposed new development. • Profiled key aspects of the proposed new development. • Provided visuals and other illustrative material to assist visitors to the website gain an understanding of what the proposed development would look like. • Included a feedback facility which allowed those visiting the website to comment on the emerging proposals.
6.5 The online exhibition was launched in early November 2020 and run for a period in excess of 3 weeks. Response Rate and Summary of Responses
6.6 A total of 48 comments had been received by 7th December 2020. These were all via email in response to the consultation letter and information provided on the website. This represents a 3.2% response rate. This rate of response can be regarded as very low, particularly for this type of initiative. It is reasonable to conclude from this that many of those consulted are either not bothered about the proposals or perhaps do not think associated impacts will be unacceptable or they tacitly support the proposals. The final point is a reasonable conclusion to come to since it is our experience that members of the public who are genuinely opposed to a development generally lose no opportunity to oppose it, particularly when given an ‘easy opportunity’ to oppose it through an on-line consultation event.
15 | P a g e
6.7 A small number of the responses asked further questions and points of clarification which were investigated. The majority of the responses, 36 (74%), were in the form of objections. It is our belief that many of those opposing the proposed development live nearby (mainly on Blackburn Brow or Blackburn Road or in Great Knowley. In terms of responses in support of the proposals, 4 (8%), fell into this category. A number of responses, 8 (17%), fell into the category of a neutral response in that they were neither fully opposing nor fully supporting the proposals. Some of these made constructive comments.
6.8 In addition, FIREM and JFP received calls from a small number of interested parties asking specific questions about aspects of the proposed development. In the main these weren’t objections rather local people pointing out their disappointment that the consented commercial (retail) development would not be implemented.
Summary of Key comments Made
6.9 A summary of comments made either objecting to or supporting the proposed development or which can be regarded as neutral are is as follows:
Summary of Objections
• The scheme will cause traffic impacts. • The scheme will impact on Mill building (some misconstrued the scope of the proposals and thought it was being proposed for demolition). • Scheme too big (misconstrued that it also included residential). • Scheme is unattractive. • Scheme is neither needed nor justified. • Too much employment land/units already in Chorley. • The old retail scheme would have been an asset to Chorley this scheme will be the opposite. • Will impact on canal. • Will impact on heritage. • Will impact on air quality. • Will affect views and rural nature of area.
Summary of Supporting Comments
• Nice to see the site developed. • New employment etc. to be welcomed.
Summary of Neutral Comments
• Pity site will not be brought forward for the retail outlet village. • Overall scheme okay and reflective of policy. • Okay but would benefit from some tweaks. • Okay but want to understand traffic impacts. Overview of Comments Made
6.10 Our comments on the responses received, which is based on a full review of each response received, are as follows:
16 | P a g e
• Many responding do not appear to know/understand how planning works, particularly the role of the development plan. • Many do not appear to know that the site is allocated mainly for employment development. • Ditto it is not designated as Green Belt. • Ditto the land to the east is allocated for housing. • Ditto the land to the north is allocated for employment. • Some respondents also appear to not know that a trio of planning application for these sites was granted in the recent past and one has been made the subject of a s73 application to increase number of consented units. • Viability issues affecting the retail scheme have either not been understood or given any weight. • Knee jerk reaction that the employment scheme will impact more than the retail scheme whereas it is the other way around. • Criticism of Chorley (mainly town centre) and comments that development on the site should try to deal with this. • Some claim the area is rural whereas this is clearly not the case. At best it is urban fringe. • General nimbyish response in terms of content from some respondents, i.e., don’t want growth or any development at all regardless of allocations for development in the area.
17 | P a g e
7. PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Introduction
7.1 As per Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, when read in conjunction with relevant sections of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning decisions including those that fall within the category of development control decisions must be taken in accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
7.2 Material considerations can cover anything to do with the purposes of planning and include all typical planning, development, land use, site and development related and other pertinent factors that have a bearing on whether a planning application should be granted.
7.3 National planning policy has the status of a material consideration in planning decisions. It can be given greater weight where there is the absence of a comprehensive or fully up to date development plan.
Presenting Policy
7.4 Although the decision-making framework places great emphasis on the importance of the development plan in planning decisions, we present planning policy in a top down approach, i.e., deal first with national planning policy followed by local policy.
National Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework
7.5 National planning policy is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), the most recent version of which was published in February 2019.
7.6 The NPPF sets out the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies applying nationally.
7.7 NPPF confirms that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (paragraph 7).
7.8 So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraphs 10 and 11). For decision- taking this means: approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: the application of policies in NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in NPPF taken as a whole.
7.9 The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood
18 | P a g e
plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed (paragraph 12).
7.10 On building a strong, competitive economy, NPPF confirms at paragraph 80 that planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. The approach taken should allow each area to build on its strengths, counter any weaknesses and address the challenges of the future. This is particularly important where Britain can be a global leader in driving innovation, and in areas with high levels of productivity, which should be able to capitalise on their performance and potential.
7.11 NPPF recognises (at paragraph 82) that planning policies and decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors. This includes making provision for clusters or networks of knowledge and data-driven, creative or high technology industries; and for storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations.
7.12 Although the matter is complicated by the very recent dropping of the old Use Class A which included retailing and food and drink uses in favour of a new class, Class E, the current version of NPPF confirms at paragraph 86 that local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses which are neither in an existing centre nor in accordance with an up-to-date plan. Main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations; and only if suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out of centre sites be considered. We comment later on how we feel NPPF guidance should be interpreted by reference to the new Class E.
7.13 Setting aside for the moment the point made above about Class E, NPP confirms that when considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites which are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale, so that opportunities to utilise suitable town centre or edge of centre sites are fully explored (paragraph 87).
7.14 This sequential approach should not be applied to applications for small scale rural offices or other small-scale rural development (paragraph 88).
7.15 NPPF provides advice at paragraph 89 for assessing applications for retail and leisure development outside town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date plan. In these situations local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500m2 of gross floorspace). This should include assessment of: a) the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and b) the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and the wider retail catchment (as applicable to the scale and
19 | P a g e
nature of the scheme (paragraph 90). Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the considerations in paragraph 89, it should be refused.
7.16 On transportation and its interface with development, at paragraph 108 NPPF confirms that when considering development/assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that:
a) appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location; b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and c) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.
7.17 At paragraph 109 NPPF confirms that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
7.18 Within this context, NPPF confirms at paragraph 110, that applications for development should:
a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use; b) address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport; c) create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards; d) allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles; and e) be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations.
7.19 All developments that will generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a travel plan, and the application should be supported by a transport statement or transport assessment so that the likely impacts of the proposal can be assessed (paragraph 111).
7.20 Regarding making effective use of land, NPP sets out at paragraph 117 that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously developed or ‘brownfield’ land.
7.21 NPPF confirms that achieving well-designed places is a key government planning policy aspiration (covered between paragraphs 124 and 132). It confirms, in summary, that the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and
20 | P a g e
development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities. Being clear about design expectations, and how these will be tested, is essential for achieving this. So too is effective engagement between applicants, communities, local planning authorities and other interests throughout the process.
7.22 On meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, NPPF is keen that the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure (paragraph 148). Development Plan
7.23 The development plan for the area, also known as the Chorley Local Plan, least in its widest sense, currently comprises The Central Lancashire Core Strategy (adopted 2012 (“CLCS”)) and The Chorley Local Plan (adopted 2015 (“CLP”)).
7.24 The CLCS was prepared jointly by Chorley, South Ribble and Preston Councils. It sets out the vision, objectives and spatial strategy for the development of Central Lancashire to 2026 and includes policies on key issues: housing, transport, business and industry and the environment.
7.25 The CLP identifies the scale of development in each of the Borough’s settlements and allocates sites to meet the development needs of Chorley up to period 2026 in order to achieve the vision for growth as outlined in the Core Strategy. The Local Plan identifies key local issues and provides a set of policies to manage change which will be used by the council to determine planning applications. The CLP is in general conformity with the strategic objectives of the adopted Core Strategy.
Central Lancashire Core Strategy
7.26 Key policies from the CLCS are as follows:
• Policy 1: Locating Growth • Policy 9: Economic Growth and Employment • Policy 10: Employment Premises and Sites • Policy 11: Retail and Town Centre Uses and Business Based Tourism • Policy 15: Skills and Economic Inclusion • Policy 26: Crime and Community Safety • Policy 27: Sustainable Resources and New Developments • Policy 28: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Schemes • Policy 30: Air Quality
Chorley Local Plan
7.27 The site is allocated for development under Policy EP1.2 the CLP. Details of specific uses that are supported are set out later. The relevant extract from the plan’s policy map is as follows:
21 | P a g e
7.28 Policy EP1: Employment Site Allocations confirms that relevant sites shown on the plan’s Policies Map are allocated and will be protected for business, general industrial or storage and distribution uses (then Use Classes B1, B2 and B8 now Use Classes E, B2 and B8) in the period 2010- 2026. Chorley Council will require a masterplan or development brief on sites identified with an *(M/DB). Sites identified with # are also considered suitable for housing use as part of a mixed-use development.
7.29 The site is specifically covered under this policy as Site EP1.2: Botany Bay *# m meaning it needs to be masterplanned or supported by a development brief and might be suitable in part for housing as part of a mixed-use development. In general terms the policy confirms that the site is regarded as a significant development opportunity for Uses Classes B1 (now Class E), B2, B8, C1 Use Classes. The policy also confirms that the site is covered in more detail in Policy EP2.
7.30 Policy EP2, Botany Bay/Great Knowley Area – Sub-Regional Employment and Mixed Use Site, confirms that within the area defined on the CLP’s policies map as Botany Bay/Great Knowley, new development, redevelopment or change of use will be permitted subject to the following:
a) Comprehensive development of the site is demonstrated through a masterplan; b) The implementation of development in accordance with an agreed design code; c) A phasing and infrastructure delivery schedule for the area; and d) An agreed programme of implementation in accordance with the masterplan.
7.31 Regarding the actual Botany Bay/Site EP1.2 (Site area said to be 8.8 hectares), permitted uses are defined as:
22 | P a g e
i. Employment uses comprising B1 (Business), B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage or Distribution). ii. Hotel (Use Class C1), Restaurants and cafes (Use Class A3) and drinking establishments (Use Class A4). iii. Leisure uses (Use Class D2). iv. Retail (Use Class A1). v. Pedestrian and cycle route adjacent to the canal.
7.32 The policy also confirms that residential uses may be permitted if the nature of the employment use would support residential use above ground floor level.
7.33 Other relevant policies from CLP are as follows:
• Policy ST1: Provision or Improvement of Footpaths, Cycleways, Bridleways and their Associated Facilities in Existing Networks and New Development • Policy ST3: Road Schemes and Development Access • Policy ST4: Parking Standards • Policy EP3: Development Criteria for Business and Industrial Development • Policy EP9: Development in Edge-of-Centre and Out-of-Centre Locations • Policy BNE1: Design Criteria for New Development • Policy BNE6: Light Pollution • PolicyHW4: The Leeds and Liverpool Canal
Supplementary Planning Documents
7.34 The council has produced a number of supplementary planning documents (“SPDs”) of which three are considered relevant to the proposed development. They are as follows:
• Design Guide SPD – The key objective of this SPD is to raise the level and quality of design of new buildings. It provides an overview of the design principles the council will employ when considering planning proposals. It covers commercial and other uses. • Renewable and Low Carbon Energy SPD - This SPD provides further guidance on relevant CLCS and CLP policies and how they will be applied. It also sets out the various renewable and low carbon energy technologies and how they need to be delivered through developments and how they will be addressed as part of any planning application. • Central Lancashire Employment Skills SPD - This SPD set out the council's requirement to see additional benefits (known as social value benefits) incorporated into housing and commercial development opportunities. The SPD provides planning guidance in relation to the preparation of an Employment and Skills Plan which supports the implementation of CLCS Policy 15: Skills and Economic Inclusion. An applicant will need to submit an Employment and Skills Statement with a planning application where development exceed the thresholds of Commercial Floorspace (1,000 sqm) and Housing Development (30 units).
Emerging Local Plan
7.35 As has already been confirmed, Central Lancashire covers the geographical areas of Preston, Chorley and South Ribble, which functions as a single integrated local economy and
23 | P a g e commuting area. It is also considered as a single housing market area. The three local authorities involved have a long history of working together in partnership to produce local plans to inform land use and deliver strategic objectives. The councils collaborated between 2008 and 2012 to produce the CLCS. In 2018 a review of the CLCS and individual local plans was begun with a view to delivering a new single Central Lancashire Local Plan (“CLLP”) with a life till 2036. Work on the CLLP is progressing. An evidence base has been created and several early stages have been completed. Submission stage is envisaged in 2022 and adoption in 2023.
24 | P a g e
8. THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING APPLICATION
Introduction
Decision Making Framework 8.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, when read in conjunction with relevant sections of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, requires development management decisions on planning applications to be taken in accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Purpose of this Section
8.2 This section of the statement sets out the overall case in support of the planning application and proposed development it promotes by reference to the decision making framework. Specifically, it considers whether the proposed development accords with the provisions of the development plan, this by reference to the policies set out at section 5 of the statement.
Approach
8.3 In carrying out our assessment of whether the planning application can be regarded as according with development plan policy, we first assess the effects and benefits of the proposed development by reference to usual planning and land use considerations and other material considerations. This is a sensible approach as each topic is linked to specific and relevant development plan policy.
Interpretation of Planning Policy
8.4 A related and important point relates to how development plan policy should be interpreted. In this regard it is helpful to consider the UK Supreme Court decision concerning the Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13 case. This is because amongst other things the decision focused on the wording of planning policy, what it means and how it should be interpreted.
8.5 Of relevance are paragraphs 18 and 19, which concluded that planning policy should be ‘…interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used and read in its proper context.’
8.6 The Dundee decision confirms that, although the application of a particular policy to a particular set of facts falls within the judgement of a local planning authority, it is a matter for the courts to interpret the meaning of policy not the local planning authority. Therefore, a local planning authority must apply policy as it is written and not as they (or others) might want to interpret it.
8.7 We apply this approach when applying and considering the effects and intentions of relevant development plan policy.
The Case in Support of the Planning Application
Principle of Development
8.8 The site is currently partially developed by the former mill building, which will be retained, and is brownfield in profile. The mill is a prominent well known building that is located in the central section of the site. Other buildings associated with the previous use of the site as a
25 | P a g e
retail and leisure destination have been removed from the site. The land to the north, east and south of the former mill building was in use for car parking associated with the retail and leisure use of the mill building and also its current ongoing uses as offices. The archaeology and heritage assessment by Orion contain historic maps of the site which profile its growth and development over the years.
8.9 Another relevant consideration to whether the principle of development at the site is established is linked to how the site is treated in the development plan. As is set out in Section 5 of the statement, the site is allocated for major development (mixed uses) as is the land to the east (residential) and north (employment).
8.10 The historic and ongoing use of the site for commercial and employment uses, the fact it can be regarded as previously developed land and reference to the site’s allocation for development in the development plan, confirms that the principle of development at the site is well established. This also extends to the form and scale of development and related uses proposed as these are directly supported by development plan policy. We cover this matter in greater detail later.
Proposed Uses
8.11 As alluded to in paragraphs 8.9 and 8.10 above and as covered in greater detail later in this section, the site is allocated for employment and commercial development in the development plan. This is under Planning Policy EP1: Employment Site Allocations and Policy EP2: Botany Bay/Great Knowley Area – Sub-Regional Employment and Mixed Use Site. Between the two policies the site is allocated for Uses Classes B1 (now part of Use Class E), B2, B8, C1.
8.12 Setting aside the fact that the proposed uses can be regarded as appropriate by reference to development plan policy and the current and historic use of the site, the location and profile of the site close to a motorway junction and part of the primary route network near to the heart of Chorley contributes towards any assessment of its suitability for commercial and employment uses in accessibility, locational and geographic terms.
Layout and Design
8.13 The layout of the proposed development is one that has almost designed itself. This is because of the shape of the site and the fact the existing mill building is to be retained. The site is almost teardrop in shape as its northern and southern extremities both taper to a point; plus its widest point is at its mid-section. In addition, the site benefits from high quality vehicular access into the northern part of the site off the primary road network.
8.14 Utilising the existing high quality vehicular access that already exists into the site means that the best way to serve all part of the site remains as is the case at the present time – through a north to south running main spine road that runs the length of the site to the existing access/egress in the southern part of the site. This was and remains the best way to serve all parts of the site. Although it should be noted that although the southern access/egress point will be retained it will be gated and only made available for use by emergency vehicles. Pedestrian access will remain uninhibited.
8.15 The spine road will run alongside the eastern edge of the site and running west from this road will be shorter cul-de-sacs/access roads serving the main blocks of development.
26 | P a g e
8.16 Regarding the blocks of development themselves, these have been designed, in layout and orientation terms, to make the best use of the shape and profile of the site, for example, the biggest units are to be located in what we would term the deepest part of the site, which correlates with its mid-section. Where the site runs out to a taper towards its southern extremes, proposed blocks of development are thinner and longer and face onto the road. The commercial uses (in Blocks A and B) are best at the northern tip of the site so they can be easily accessed off A674 and by pedestrians from the residential site to the east.
8.17 The drawings pack and DAS by MCAU provides detail on the heights and depths of the proposed blocks of development and proposed materials. These reflect industrial and institutional requirements and what the market says occupiers desire by way of footprint, floorspace, floor to ceiling heights and car and larger vehicle parking and manoeuvring area and servicing requirements.
8.18 It is clear from the DAS and drawings pack that the proposed development will be a modern, high quality commercial and employment uses biased business park, which will attract a range of occupiers engaged in businesses operating across a range of sectors captured under Use Classes E, B2 and B8.
8.19 We are advised by FIREM through work it has undertaken itself and based on advice it has received from its agents that there is considerable demand for the type and profile of floorspace it is proposing at the Site through the application proposals. It is for this reason that the main, the key, elements of the proposed scheme, which are the main blocks of development that will be used for employment purposes, are being promoted through the detailed elements of the hybrid application. It is envisaged that they will be delivered through either two main phases of development starting in the north towards the south or a single phase of development also starting in the north. The commercial elements, Blocks A-B, which represents a small fraction of the overall floorspace proposed, have deliberately been made in outline form to ensure that the specific floorspace, layout and site related needs of potential occupiers can be met and will be dealt with through reserved matters.
8.20 In planning policy terms, the development plan includes a number of policies that require developments to be high quality and fit for purpose. These are Planning Policies EP1, EP2, EP3, BNE1 and the Design Guide SPD. NPPF also places emphasis on the need for new development to be of a high quality and to react to the needs of the site and area and generally be sustainable. These matters are also covered in detail in the DAS by MCAU.
8.21 It is our view that the proposed layout and design of the development, reacts to the location, size and shape of the site, can be regarded as being of a good quality and is fit for purpose and more importantly means that the proposed development accords with design policies of the development plan and NPPF.
Adjoining Uses
8.22 Currently, the application site borders the M61 to the south west and beyond this are other employment uses. To the north is the A674 beyond which is a site that benefits from an allocation and also planning permisison for employment uses. To the east is the Leeds Liverpool Canal beyond which is undeveloped land that rises in the east up to Blackburn Brow/Blackburn Road and Great Knowley. This is allocated for and in part also benefits from planning permisison for residential development. To the south east, on the north eastern side of the M61, albeit some distance away, are other commercial uses and residential.
27 | P a g e
8.23 The layout and design of the proposed development takes these contexts into account.
8.24 The existing and proposed land uses in the context of the land to the north and south west cannot be regarded as an issue in terms of their future relationship to the proposed scheme. This is by reference to the fact to the north will be a further area of employment and to the south west is a six lane motorway beyond which are further areas of employment and commercial uses.
8.25 To the east we acknowledge that the proposed development has to take into account the fact the land is allocated for residential and planning permisison for this use has been granted. The proposed scheme, as is confirmed through supporting documentation dealing with landscape and visual impacts, noise and air quality, can be regarded as having an acceptable relationship to the land to the east of the canal. In addition, the planning permisison for residential for the FIREM controlled land to the east is outline in form. This was deliberate. This is because it means that detailed layout and key elements of the scheme have not yet been fixed. As and when reserved matters come forward the scope of this development can and will be designed to take account of the development currently proposed under this planning application to the west. This is in the control of the applicant, FIREM. The land also allocated for residential development further to the south of the FIREM residential site also east of the canal, which we understand is currently the subject of an undetermined planning application, can also be similarly controlled through use of planning conditions.
8.26 It should also be noted that the site’s allocation for development in the development plan for commercial and employment uses was made at the same time as the related sites and allocations. They are all covered under and referred to as the Great Knowley Mixed Use Site. Accordingly, the development plan process and work carried out then assumed that the use of the Botany Bay element of the wider mixed use site could live side by side with the use of the land to the east for residential. Obviously, the land to the north, which is also an employment site, was similarly judged to be acceptable.
8.27 Work by the applicant’s noise consultants, Bureau Veritas, through their noise assessment submitted in support of the application, confirms that the relationship between the proposed commercial and employment uses and residential is acceptable and, importantly, that the envisaged commercial and employment uses, including by reference to the profile of the proposed blocks of development/related units, will not give rise to impacts on residential amenity associated with the operational use of the commercial and employment uses.
8.28 In essence, as is envisaged by Policies EP1 and EP2 of the CLP, the relationship of the site and proposed developments to the adjoining sites and proposed uses for them can be regarded as acceptable.
Sustainability Considerations
8.29 Work by the Energy Council on behalf of FIREM in relation to the proposed development and submitted inn support of the planning application confirms that the proposed development can be regarded as being very sustainable.
8.30 Following the ‘Be Lean, Be Clean, Be Green’ hierarchy, the proposed layout and design solutions by MCAU are predicted to reduce the total carbon emissions by 127,353 Kg/CO2/yr from the baseline emissions of 753,636 kg/CO2/yr. This equates to a 16.90% carbon reduction
28 | P a g e
from the calculated baseline regulated CO2 emissions. This is a material consideration to be used in support of the application.
8.31 The approach for the proposed development of the 5 units in Blocks A-B and 28 units in Blocks C-J is to embed sustainability into the heart of the development through a range of design measures based on the ‘Be Lean, Be Clean, Be Green’ design hierarchy. Measures will include:
• Enhanced building fabric to meet Building Regulation ADL2A 2016. • Enhanced air tightness and thermal bridging. • Heating by highly-efficient gas boiler and radiant system. • Hot water will be provided by a highly efficient point of use system. • Highly efficient lighting and lighting control strategy with LED type fittings. • Photovoltaic arrays totalling 4.8kWp split between all retail units.
8.32 Low/ Zero Carbon Technologies (LZT) Review confirms the following of the proposed development:
• Photovoltaic panels have been incorporated for the commercial units (Blocks A-B) to help generate electricity to meet the high electrical demand loads for this type of building. • Solar Thermal Hot Water is not considered a viable option as an accurate estimate of hot water demand is not known; however it is not expected to be a major energy contributor. • Biomass has been discounted as it poses problems in terms of air quality, delivery of fuel, storage and transportation for deliveries etc. It would require a centralised larger plant space for storing fuel, which is not suitable for a shell and core development. • Micro-wind turbines do not work on this type of development due to problems with wind turbulence and mounting of the units. The wind speeds in the area are not conducive to wind power electricity generation and there would be issues with turbulence, wind shading and noise. • GSHPs are not viable for the site because of spatial and financial costs. Associated communal plant room, ground conditions are unknown and systems are very costly. • ASHPs have not been utilised as the heating and cooling demand for the development is likely to be low.
8.33 An overall 16.90% improvement in CO2 emissions above the Building Regulations baseline is proposed to support the planning application which we would say is in line with planning policy at a national and local level, which has to be read as a benefit of the proposed development and puts it into the category of a development that can be regarded as delivering sustainability benefits. Overall, it is our view that the proposed development can be regarded as sustainable, energy efficient and complying with relevant targets and policy.
Utilities
8.34 This is not a key planning consideration as planning, as a process, should mainly consider whether a site can be regarded as suitable for development by reference to its allocation or designation in the development plan and site and land use related considerations, but nevertheless it can have a bearing on viability and deliverability in some instances.
29 | P a g e
8.35 In this case a detailed utilities assessment was undertaken by Murphy Young on behalf of the applicant and a utilities statement this has been submitted in support of the planning application. The utilities statement summarises information obtained from various service providers as background information to support the planning application. This confirms that the site is served by water, electricity, gas and telecom services. Infrastructure serves the existing mill building within the development area plus there is service infrastructure in close proximity to the site boundaries.
8.36 An outline scheme design for direct and private electricity, gas and water connections within the development is being prepared by Murphy Young. The scheme designs will be included within an Energy Strategy Document. Electricity and gas connections to the site are subject to formal connection requests being prepared by Murphy Young.
8.37 Pre-development Water and Wastewater appraisals will be arranged by FI Real Estate Management.
8.38 The work by Murphy Young finds there to be no significant utility restrictions that would prevent the planning application being granted nor the construction of the proposed development.
Transportation Considerations
8.39 In view of its involvement with the previous and still extent planning permisison for the alternative commercial scheme for the site, Curtins was retained by the applicant to advise on and provide traffic and transportation support for the planning application.
8.40 The work by Curtins is set out in its transport assessment and has been prepared to inform Highways Officers at Lancashire County Council as the Local Highway Authority and Highways England as the Strategic Highway Authority on all traffic and transportation matters associated with the application. The assessment considers the traffic impact of the application site whilst also considering the other planning consents granted for the site to the north and east of Botany Bay (across the Great Knowley area). The assessment also notes that the site is currently occupied by the mill building and that, whilst the office accommodation is still occupied, the retail use of the mill, garden centre and play centre has been discontinued and won’t be reinstated.
8.41 The assessment notes that the principle of a large amount of commercial development at the Botany Bay Site has been established previously (through the previous and still extant planning permisison for the mainly retail development) and the site has been determined to be located in a sustainable location and is accessible by a range of non-car modes of travel including walking, cycling and public transport.
8.42 The proposed commercial and employment development covered under the current application is considered to be consistent with local and national transport planning policies and guidance including the development plan and NPPF.
8.43 Following a detailed traffic impact assessment of the local and strategic highway network, it has been determined that off-site highway improvements will be required at the M61 Junction 8 and Hartwood Roundabout in order to mitigate the traffic impact of the proposed employment scheme in isolation (detailed in transport assessment).
30 | P a g e
8.44 The transport assessment also presents an off-site highway mitigation strategy to assist in the delivery of the wider consented applications that make up the Great Knowley masterplan area. A package of highway works has been identified along with the traffic levels that would trigger the delivery of the identified works. It is envisaged that the trigger levels would be monitored as each reserved matters application is submitted and infrastructure is in place prior to occupation of any subsequent phase of development.
8.45 The overall conclusions of the Curtin transport assessment are that, following the delivery of highway mitigation at key local and strategic highway junctions, the proposed development for commercial and employment uses at the site will not result in a severe residual impact in accordance with relevant planning policy in the development plan and NPPF. Furthermore, it should be noted that the effects of the currently proposed scheme can be considered to be less than those that were associated with the previous planning permisison for the mainly retail and leisure based scheme for the site. Accordingly, from a traffic and transportation perspective there are no reasons why the development proposals should not be granted planning approval.
Air Quality Considerations
8.46 In conjunction with the work carried out by Curtins described above, Bureau Veritas carried out an air quality assessment to consider whether the proposed development would give rise to any air quality related issues or concerns.
8.47 The assessment confirms that the proposed development/application site is not located within an AQMA, with the nearest AQMA located in Leyland, approximately 5km north west of the site. Following consultation with the council, an air quality assessment was prepared to determine the significance of air quality impacts during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development. Consultation with the council was carried out prior to undertaking the assessment and agreement made with regards to the proposed methodology. This is outlined in the assessment.
Construction Effects
8.48 The assessment of dust and PM10 effects from the construction phase of the development was subject to a qualitative assessment following IAQM guidance. Effective mitigation measures for fugitive dusts would be implemented under site management controls by the development company and with such mitigation in place, the assessment carried out shows that any off-site impacts from dust emissions during the construction phase would be not significant.
Operational Effects
8.49 The assessment considered the operational effects and impacts on existing and new receptors from road traffic emissions associated with the employment development and masterplan development. In accordance with EPUK/IAQM guidance, the impacts of the development on annual mean PM2.5 concentrations were found to be negligible at all existing receptors. Impacts of the development on annual mean PM2.5 concentrations are therefore not considered significant. At receptors newly introduced at the masterplan site, the NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentration in the 2027 DS2 scenario were all predicted below AQS objectives, and so the site is considered suitable for the proposed use.
31 | P a g e
Comparison with Previous Application
8.50 Following completion of the air quality assessment by Bureau Veritas, they went on to compare the findings of the assessment with the conclusions of the report on the same topic in support of the previous application for a mainly retail development. The conclusion of both this report and the EIA/ES chapter on this topic submitted in support of that application found that the effect on local air quality as a result of both developments would not be significant. This matter and the same finding is also considered and set out through the ESCS.
8.51 Based on the work and key findings and related conclusions of the Bureau Veritas air quality assessment it is clear that the proposed development would not give rise to any air quality related concerns. Ecology (and Tree Related) Considerations
Ecology
8.52 Bowland Ecology Ltd was commissioned by the applicant to complete an updated ecological appraisal of the site.
8.53 A suite of ecological surveys was undertaken by Bowland Ecology Ltd in 2016 to support the planning applications for the retail and leisure uses scheme at the site as previously detailed. An Extended Phase 1 habitat survey and bat surveys, bird surveys, reptile surveys and otter/water vole surveys of all three sites were also undertaken. The purpose of the new/updated ecological assessment is to support the new application for the Botany Bay site. This is to inform the current hybrid planning application for commercial and employment uses.
8.54 A key element of general NPPF policy guidance relating to this topic area is to minimise impacts to biodiversity and provide enhancements. Paragraph 170 states that ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by … minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity…’ Paragraph 175 also states that ‘when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should … encourage opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments.’ (NPPF 2019). The assessment, therefore, includes suggested enhancement measures and related works which would be delivered through the proposed development. The recommendations set out in full in the report and are designed to comply with legal requirements and national and local planning policy. The overall conclusions of the updated assessment is that the proposed development can be regarded as acceptable in ecology terms.
Effect on Trees
8.55 In addition, the authors also considered effects on trees. A BS5837 tree quality survey and arboricultural impact assessment was undertaken to inform the proposed redevelopment proposals at Botany Bay.
8.56 The development will require the removal of internal sections of predominantly low value car park tree planting which is of limited amenity value beyond the confines of the site. Eastern boundary hedgerow cover will be retained and enhanced and the site’s principal boundary stock to the west and north will be retained following some minor clearance to the lower value site-side portions of regenerative tree cover. No TPO tree cover will be impacted.
8.57 As part of mitigating the removal of existing tree cover, proposed layout includes a commitment to offering direct tree loss replacement and enhancements to the network of
32 | P a g e
boundary vegetation. The level of new planting throughout the site is expected to substantially increase the canopy area Arboricultural Impact Assessment of the site, reinforce the site boundaries, and enhance the long-term amenity potential of the site’s overall tree stock given the limited extent of vegetation removal which is envisaged at this stage.
8.58 The assessment notes that the site also benefits from an extant outline planning consent for proposed redevelopment works including demolition and retail use with associated car parking, highways works and landscaping (ref. 17/00715/OUTMAJ). The required tree removal works to facilitate the revised development are consistent with the losses which have been consented previously.
8.59 The current development proposals are therefore considered acceptable in arboricultural terms and demonstrate conformity with local planning policy aspirations pertinent to trees given the appropriate balance of loss and replacement which is being sought.
Ground Condition Considerations
8.60 In support of the planning application, Integra Consulting was commissioned to carry out a ground condition assessment of the proposed development (Phase 2 Environmental Investigation Report by reference to Integra). The report has been submitted in support of the planning application. In summary, the report confirms that the on-site and desk top related work confirms that that the site can be regarded as suitable for the proposed development.
8.61 In the event the construction stages of the project identify any visual or olfactory evidence of hitherto unidentified contamination or ground related issues, the Local Authority Environmental Health Officer and/or Environment Agency will be contacted immediately in order to agree any necessary remediation measures. This is the standard approach in such circumstances.
8.62 Accordingly, in terms of ground conditions the application site can be regarded as suitable for the proposed development and the application can be approved.
Drainage and Flood Risk Considerations
8.63 Integra Consulting was also commissioned to undertake a Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Assessment (FRA) for the site at Botany Bay, Chorley. This full assessment supports the planning application.
8.64 The FRA has at its heart the objective of identifying potential flooding issues and any consequent implications on the proposed site re-development. Both existing and proposed surface water drainage for the re-development site are considered. The FRA has been undertaken in accordance with relevant guidance and protocols applying (set out in the full FRA). In addition, consultations were undertaken with the Environment Agency (EA). Guidance for the surface water drainage scheme has been taken from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) in the form of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS).
8.65 Following review of the Environment Agency flood maps and data it can be confirmed that the site lies entirely within Flood Zone 1 (refer to Appendix 3).
33 | P a g e
Surface Water Flood Routes
8.66 The FRA confirms that there are to be no off site surface water flood routes generated by the development during an enhanced 1 in 100 year storm. All surface water run-off will remain on site up to the 1 in 100 year + 35% climate change event.
Site Surface Water Drainage
8.67 It is proposed to discharge post development surface water run-off to the existing ditch crossing the site. Overall post development discharge rates will be restricted to 80% of the existing brownfield run-off rate. The proposed surface water discharge will be attenuated on site due to the reduction in flow rates up to the 1 in 100 + 35% climate change event.
Flood Risk Management Measures
8.68 There will be a site management Health and Safety document prepared in respect of the site.
Off Site Impacts
8.69 All roofed and paved areas are to be formally drained into the on-site surface water drainage system. The design of the onsite surface water system would ensure that no off site flood flows are generated by the proposed development in the 1% plus climate change event.
Residual Risk
8.70 With careful design of the drainage elements as described above, there will be no residual flood related risks remaining after the development has been completed. A safe emergency access can be maintained at all times post development during a flood event. Emergency access will be from the A674. There is also the option to use the southern access if necessary albeit only as an emergency/in times of emergency. Proposed post development levels will be engineered so as to protect the development and not provide any increased flood risk elsewhere.
8.71 The overall conclusions drawn by Integra Consulting are to the effect that there are no drainage nor flood risks affecting the site nor would any be caused by the proposed development suggesting that from the perspective of this topic the planning application can and should be approved.
Archaeology and Heritage Considerations
8.72 A heritage desk-based assessment was carried out by Orion and has been lodged in support of the planning application. The assessment was carried out in accordance with government policy (NPPF). The assessment draws together the available archaeological, historic, topographic and land-use information in order to clarify the heritage significance and archaeological potential of the site.
8.73 The assessment has established that the site has low/nil potential for archaeological remains from the prehistoric, Roman, Saxon, Medieval and Post-Medieval periods.
8.74 Canal Mill is a non-designated asset within the site boundary which is considered to be of local archaeological interest. This will be retained in its current form. There is also some potential for the discovery of sub-surface remains associated with the mill to be present.
34 | P a g e
8.75 A possible farmstead and Hope Mill, both of which are 19th century in date, are recorded within the site boundary.
8.76 It is considered that any archaeological assets within the site boundary will have either been severely truncated or completely destroyed by previous modern development.
8.77 In light of the above, it is possible that the only additional archaeological work which may be required by the planning authority’s archaeological advisor is the recording of Canal Mill prior to development, although it should of course be remembered that this building is to be retained, but this could be undertaken as a planning condition imposed on any grant of planning permisison.
8.78 Overall, the Orion assessment concludes that development of the site through the proposed development would not have any impact on designated assets (Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation Areas). And as such the planning application can be granted.
Noise Considerations
8.79 Bureau Veritas was also instructed to undertake a noise impact assessment to support the planning application. The noise assessment was carried out to determine the potential noise impact of the operation of the commercial units on existing and future local residents based on the results of a baseline sound level survey and sound propagation modelling carried out in accordance with current guidance and best practice.
8.80 The assessment notes that the proposed development will comprise a number of commercial and employment units ranging from small trade counter units to large warehouse and distribution units, as well as office accommodation within a new build block, and within the existing mill building on site. The assessment considers the operation of these units for these uses.
8.81 The assessment also considered the potential noise impact of HGV movements and loading/unloading activities, as well as staff car park use, during daytime and night-time periods.
8.82 The assessment concludes that, during the daytime, operation of the proposed development will not result in significant adverse noise impacts at either existing or proposed residential dwellings. This is primarily due to the existing high ambient and background sound levels due to road traffic on the M61 Motorway to the west.
8.83 At night, noise impacts will also not be significant at existing residential dwellings as perceptibility will be very low due to the predicted absolute sound levels, the prevailing ambient road traffic noise levels and the sound attenuation through an open bedroom window.
8.84 The assessment indicates potential significant adverse noise impacts from site operations at night at possible future residential dwellings on land east of the site. However, the design of future residential dwellings will need to provide sufficient sound attenuation to mitigate existing M61 road traffic noise during the day. This attenuation would exceed the requirements to provide suitable internal amenity in bedrooms at night in respect of noise from the proposed development. Furthermore, additional noise mitigation measures may also be incorporated into the final proposed layout designs for the future residential
35 | P a g e
developments, such additional distance separation (increased buffer zone), localised screening and planting.
8.85 In summary, the effects of noise from the site are not expected to be significant during daytime or night-time periods at nearby receptors, based on appropriate acoustic design of proposed residential dwellings in close proximity to the site. Based on the Bureau Veritas assessment it would seem that the planning application can be granted as the proposed development will not cause noise nuisances nor impact on current or future residential amenity.
Landscape and Visual Impact Considerations
8.86 A landscape and visual impact assessment was carried out by Tyler Grange and has been lodged in support of the planning application.
8.87 The assessment confirms that the site represents a low sensitivity landscape character resource, and whilst localised moderate to minor adverse impacts will be experienced by residential properties in the vicinity, and some moderate adverse impacts will be experienced by users of the public rights of way network local to the site, contextually this is a characteristically settlement fringe landscape, located on the immediate eastern edge of employment land uses with which there is a clear visual relationship. The site itself is contained by the presence of surrounding employment development and highways and associated vegetation to the west, with a layering of intervening vegetation present within the surrounding landscape to the north which limits the availability of site-facing views.
8.88 The proposed development would result in the loss of internal tracts of largely derelict land, car park trees and limited sections of boundary scrubby tree cover to the north and west, with mitigation planting across the edges of the development being implemented to compensate these losses resulting in a net-gain in tree cover as a result. The quality and quantum of new green infrastructure will provide localised enhancements to the landscape framework and whilst the proposals will be somewhat visually prominent within a localised area, the scheme would not be uncharacteristic given the adjacent developed context and extant employment allocation.
8.89 Visually, there are a number of higher sensitivity recreational and residential receptors identified in the vicinity of the site, including across the Blackburn Road / Great Knowley residential area to the east, and at close proximity in relation to public footpath 9-2-FP 26 within and adjacent to the site, and the Leeds and Liverpool Canal Towpath which runs parallel to the site’s eastern boundary. For such receptors, residual effects are assessed as being no worse than Moderate to Minor adverse where the proposed development would be visible, but not wholly incongruous given the existing developed context. The baseline photography illustrates the presence of adjoining employment development, including large sheds nestled amongst tree cover in the wider Chorley townscape west of the site, the existing Canal Mill building on-site and associated ancillary development, including highways infrastructure, lighting columns and car parking with a network of site boundary highways infrastructure (including the M61 and A674 corridors) being established features of the urbanised settlement fringe local to the site.
8.90 The proposed Block E unit will be 20m in height, compared to the retained Canal Mill building which is 5 storeys and 19m in height although there are corner towers and other roof sited services infrastructure that project above this height. At greater distances, the perceived
36 | P a g e
height differentiation will be largely negligible with many of the lower lying blocks within the site remaining screened or limited to upper storeys and roofscape owing, especially where internal areas of the site and the Canal Mill building are currently fully or partially obscured from view.
8.91 Overall, it is considered that the development proposed is consistent with the existing scale, pattern, grain, topography and land use of the prevailing urban fringe character and visual context at the eastern edge of Chorley and the principle of the site’s redevelopment has been previously established by virtue of its extant planning consent for retail use, and the new scheme will be brought forward in accordance with Policy EP1 Employment Site Allocation.
8.92 By reference to landscape and visual impact considerations it can be seen that the proposed developments covered under the planning application can be regarded as acceptable and are supportable.
Employment Land Considerations and Demand for the Proposed Development
8.93 While this topic cannot be regarded as important as many of the land use related topics the proposed development has been assessed against, for example, transportation, nevertheless it is a relevant material consideration.
8.94 The company has complete confidence in its proposed development at Botany Bay and is proud to be associated with a development that will deliver such a wide range of benefits to the local and wider area.
8.95 The Borough is currently served by what, on paper at least, can be regarded as a wide range and mix of employment sites and premises. But many of these are old, offer poor quality premises, don’t offer modern flexible floorspace, aren’t well located in accessibility terms and offer limited potential for the needs of modern industry and commerce. And all too often, as a consequence of this, the Borough is bypassed in favour of other locations dotted around the sub-regional and wider North West motorway network.
8.96 Demand remains high for good quality, modern, fit for purpose, investor satisfied, employment and commercial floorspace that is well located vis a vis its relationship to the town of Chorley and also the motorway and primary route network. It surely follows that a site like Botany Bay that is allocated for employment and commercial development, and which stand at the top of the tree in terms of its potential and attractiveness for these uses, should be maximised in terms of its development potential. This position is further enhanced by the fact the site is being promoted for a modern business park by a specialist commercial and employment developments developer, FIREM, which is also an investor in and holder of such developments. Meaning that the development will remain in this use and be well managed and maintained as are all other FIREM held investments.
8.97 FIREM is of the view that the Botany Bay site is eminently suitable for the proposed development covered under the planning application, which setting aside the fact the application broadly accords with development plan policy (set out in planning statement by JFP, can also be justified by reference to the need and demand for a modern, multi-unit, flexible development, high quality employment and commercial development at this location.
8.98 The Botany Bay site and the development proposed under the current planning application can be regarded as the best option to meet the local need and demand for a modern, well located, fit for purpose business park.
37 | P a g e
8.99 In conclusion, the report confirms that there is strong and local demand for the type and quality of employment and commercial floorspace being proposed under the planning application. The demand is such that it suggests that there is strong commercial support for and likelihood the proposed development will be brought forward in the short term in the event planning permission is granted for the proposed development.
Economic Benefit Considerations
Economic Benefits
8.100 Following an assessment of the economic and social benefits of the new scheme covered under the planning application by JFP, and also a separate exercise on the social values and benefits that might be delivered by the scheme, also by JFP, it is clear that the proposed development offers the potential for the proposed development to deliver a considerable array of valuable economic benefits.
8.101 The benefits include new jobs that will be created during the construction stage of the proposed development (165 FTE jobs per annum). These will be well paid jobs and they will last over the estimated 2.5 year construction phase of the development (two key phases of development are planned). The value of these jobs will be high (annual value construction jobs: £5.3m; value over lifetime of construction phase: £13.2m).
8.102 In addition, the construction phases of the project, will generate a high level of secondary jobs (indirect and induced jobs) over the lifetime of this element of the project (181 jobs per annum). The value of secondary jobs (indirect and induced) is also impressive (annual value of indirect jobs: £2m and induced jobs is £1.2m; value over lifetime of construction phase of development for indirect jobs is £5m and induced jobs is £3m).
8.103 More importantly, once completed and operating and assuming all blocks of development and related units are let as currently proposed (10 Blocks and 33 units), the development offers the potential for between 465 and 595 good quality skilled and unskilled jobs to be created, which will generate a considerable and valuable source of income for the borough (from year 2.5 (post construction) to year 12.5 (first 10 years of the operational stages of the development) the value would be between £150m and £187m).
8.104 These will be skilled and unskilled jobs in industry, commerce and related sectors, including jobs for heads of households, which is an important consideration, particularly given the estimated effects of Covid-19 on levels of employment – unemployment nationally could rise to 3m by the middle part of 2021.
8.105 The operational stages of the development will also generate secondary employment which will create further disposal income for the borough. We estimate that secondary employment (indirect and induced employment (best and worst case)) would generate between 23 and 59 additional jobs which could generate income of between £460,000 and £1,180,000 annually or once completed between £4,600,000 and £11,800,000 over the first ten years of the operation of the development.
8.106 The nature of the proposed scheme means that the development will create a development value of some £45,000,000+ and will deliver a considerable level of business rates for the Council (the figure has still to be calculated).
38 | P a g e
8.107 The economic benefits of the scheme are an important material consideration and should be given great weight in the determination of this planning application (this is by reference to development plan policy and national planning policy).
Social Values Benefits
8.108 On social values, The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 was brought into effect in January 2013. It is presently being used by most local authorities, including Chorley Council, internally and externally, to influence public sector procurement and related functions in order to deliver more local jobs, provide opportunities for the development of new skills and training for local residents, build community resilience and create initiatives that have the potential to protect the environment.
8.109 The proposed development offers potential to deliver several positive social values and related benefits. There are obvious benefits like new employment, much of which it is hoped can be directed towards those in the local community who are currently unemployed or who are prejudiced from securing employment because of a physical or mental disability. In addition, the proposed development provides scope for apprenticeships to be offered and for work experience and other training to be offered.
8.110 It is also clear that, through use of a s106 agreement and appropriately worded obligations within, there is scope to deliver elements of the identified values and benefits through any planning permission granted pursuant to the current planning application. This also applies to the use of planning conditions which could be used to deliver other planning and development related values and benefits.
8.111 The social values and related benefits the proposed development has the potential have the status of important material considerations to be considered in support of the planning application and the proposed development it seeks planning permission for
Lighting
8.112 A detailed lighting strategy has been prepared by the Davies Partnership for the detailed and outline elements of the planning application.
8.113 The strategy demonstrates that the entire development can be lit through a well-planned lighting strategy in a way that will meet the operational needs of the development at all times of the day and night and throughout the year but in way that will not cause light spillage nor adversely impact on adjoining land and land uses/development that might be promoted there.
Community Consultation
8.114 A extensive on-line community consultation event was held to secure the views of the wider community. The findings of this are set out in detail in the statement of community involvement by JFP submitted in support of the planning application.
8.115 Given the numbers of households and businesses that were invited to participate, the response rate was very low. The majority that did respond live locally to the site. Many of their comments reflected disappointment that the permitted retail development would not be proceeding because of viability issues.
39 | P a g e
8.116 We would say that many comments were not planning based; a number misread the proposed scheme; other comments were not valid because the points raised were not true. Those that did raise genuine points and concerns have been addressed in the technical and planning documents submitted in support of the planning application. A key concern raised by many of those that did respond related to transportation related concerns – traffic impacts. However, all commentating on this matter failed to recognise that the current proposals would have a reduced traffic impact when compared to the previously granted retail scheme.
8.117 In addition, it should be noted that a lesser number of responses were neutral and some were also supportive. Those that were supportive gave weight to the level and quality employment that would be created.
8.118 It is our view that nothing was raised through the community consultation event that suggests the planning application should not be approved.
Retail Related Elements of the Proposed Development
8.119 We cover this because, while the proposed development is a business park, Blocks A-B have potential to be used for retail and/or food and drink uses. We would stress through that the overall development is not a retail development. It is very far from the scope and profile of the previous still extant planning permisison for the site. These matters are considered in more detail in a strategic level sequential and retail assessment by JFP.
8.120 We would restress the point that what retail development might be operated at the proposed development will be very subservient to the main employment uses. Indeed, in percentage terms, the amount of town centre uses that could be delivered is just over 2% of the total floorspace being proposed. And there is still the potential that this floorspace might come forward for employment uses. But despite the very small level of town centre uses floorspace that might be provided, 665 sq m in total, the applicant, through JFP, committed to provide a strategic level sequential test assessment as the site is out of centre. Setting aside the fact we committed to carry out and provide such an assessment, and in the knowledge only up to 665 sqm of the total amount of floorspace being proposed could be used for retail or food and drink uses, the threshold for such assessments is 2,500 sqm. This needs to be borne in mind when the work is assessed.
8.120 On sequential, having assessed several sites in and around Chorley town centre and other centres in the borough (14 in total) none were found to be sequentially superior to the subject site.
8.121 Having considered a worst-case turnover and impact profile for retailing in Block B, we have found that the level of potential impact would be very, very low, in practical terms it would be indiscernible. It would certainly be way below significant adverse which is the level by which developments of this ilk are judged to be either acceptable or unacceptable. Indeed, it should be noted that the level of turnover that might be achieved through retail use of Block B would be less than 5% of the envisaged turnover of the permitted and still extant retail scheme for Botany Bay once all phases have been implemented (at 2027). Levels of impact for that development were distributed widely and on several centres but even so the levels of impact were generally found to be very low (between 1% and 2% for Chorley). Clearly, the level of impact the subject scheme might cause, given it would deliver only a tiny proportion of the floorspace planned under the consented scheme, has to be regarded as considerably smaller and far below significant adverse.
40 | P a g e
8.122 Overall, the retail use of Block B has to be regarded as according with policy on retailing and town centre uses set out in the development plan and NPPF, including the key sequential and impact tests.
Crime Related Considerations
8.123 A crime impact assessment by Lancashire Police has been submitted in support of the planning application. This confirms that the proposed development has been designed in a way that it can be regarded as satisfying relevant design standards, protocols and policy. Also that it offers the potential to reduce possible crime and fear of crime through careful design and related features. They cannot nor be treated as actual defined security requirements. This is because the security needs of the development can only be fixed further down the line once it becomes known how each individual unit will be used and by what type of occupier. Nevertheless, the assessment confirms that, based on the detailed and outline elements of the planning application, relevant planning policies can be satisfied and the application supported.
Findings of Environmental Statement Compliance Statement Exercise
8.124 The analysis contained in the ESCS by JFP submitted in support of the planning application demonstrates that no new or additional environmental information is required to assist the Council in consider the new, revised proposals for Botany Bay.
8.125 The updated layout plan for the site and associated uplift in the proposed quantum of floorspace, by reference to the proposed uses and how floorspace will be used, does not give rise to any environmental issues or other considerations that have not already been addressed within the approved ES. Nor does it alter the conclusions of any of the technical assessments.
8.126 On the basis of the above, the new, revised proposals for Botany Bay are wholly compliant with the approved ES. As such, the ES remains valid and there is no requirement to undertake any further work or new assessments. It is therefore concluded that the new, revised proposals for Botany Bay have already been sufficiently assessed within the parameters of the approved ES. On the basis of this and consideration of the full suite of detailed technical documents lodged in support of the planning application it is our view that planning permission can and should be granted for the application.
Accordance with Planning Policy
8.127 It is clear from the information so far presented in this section of the statement that the proposed development can be regarded as generally according with development plan policy. We say this by reference to the fact that, dealing with first with key policies of the CLCS, the application site is in and area considered suitable for growth and development. Indeed, it is allocated for commercial and employment development. Accordingly, Policy 1: Locating Growth is accorded with.
8.128 The nature of the application site and proposed development means that Policy 9: Economic Growth and Employment and Policy 10: Employment Premises and Sites can be accorded with.
8.129 The small amount of retail and the nature of the offer and its purposes also means that Policy 11: Retail and Town Centre Uses and Business Based Tourism can be regarded as being satisfied.
41 | P a g e
8.130 The wide range of economic and social value benefits that will be delivered suggests that Policy 15: Skills and Economic Inclusion is satisfied.
8.131 We would also say that consideration of the proposed development also confirms that Policy 26: Crime and Community Safety; Policy 27: Sustainable Resources and New Developments; Policy 28: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Schemes can be satisfied. This is also the case with Policy 30: Air Quality.
8.132 Overall, we of the view that all relevant CLCS policies can generally be accorded with.
8.133 Regarding key policies of the CLP, specifically Policy EP1: Employment Site Allocations and Policy EP2, we would say that there is a high degree of compliance with both policies. Indeed, the currently proposed development has a bet fit with both policies than the previously granted scheme for the site.
8.134 Regarding other relevant policies, we would say that the transportation, highways and access aspects of the proposed development allow a conclusion to be drawn that Policy ST3: Road Schemes and Development Access and Policy ST4: Parking Standards are satisfied.
8.135 This also applies to Policy EP3: Development Criteria for Business and Industrial Development, Policy EP9: Development in Edge-of-Centre and Out-of-Centre Locations, Policy BNE1: Design Criteria for New Development, Policy BNE6: Light Pollution and PolicyHW4: The Leeds and Liverpool Canal
8.136 Overall, and by reference to the decision making process applying to planning applications as set out in section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and consideration of the Dundee Decision on how planning policy should be interpreted, our key conclusion is that the planning application this statement supports can be regarded as according with the development plan and, therefore, that it can and should be granted planning permisison.
42 | P a g e
9. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
9.1 Our overall conclusions are as set out below:
9.2 The application site is brownfield in profile and partially developed and the existing mill building will be retained. In locational, geographic and profile terms the application site can be regarded as suitable for a large scale development like that proposed under the planning application.
9.3 The proposed development can be regarded as a high quality, deliverable, modern, fit for purpose commercial and employment development. Its layout is ideal for and fits the site. The development comprises ten main blocks of development Blocks A-J, of which all but Blocks A-B are envisaged for employment uses. Blocks A-B provides scope for retail and food and drink uses but this is mainly for uses that will serve the employment elements of the development.
9.4 There is strong demand for the form and scale of development proposed including in this location and as such there is the expectation that the development will prove attractive to the local market-place and be delivered early in the event planning permission is grated for it.
9.5 Reference to the development plan confirms that the site is allocated for a large scale mixed use development along the lines of that proposed under the planning application, and as part of a series of linked schemes involving development of other sites to the east and north.
9.6 The current development proposals for Botany Bay are wholly compliant with and fit within an approved EIA/ES that supported a different but still extant commercial planning permisison for the site. As such, this EIA/ES remains valid and there is no requirement to undertake any further work or new assessments. It is therefore concluded that the new, revised proposals for Botany Bay have already been sufficiently assessed within the parameters of the approved ES.
9.7 The transportation effects and impacts of the proposed development can be regarded as acceptable and will be less than those associated with a consented and the extant scheme for retail and leisure uses at the site.
9.8 The landscape and visual impact effects and impacts of the proposed development can be regarded as acceptable and will be little different than those associated with the consented and still extant scheme for retail and leisure uses at the site.
9.9 The ecology and nature conservation (including impacts on trees) related effects and impacts of the proposed development can be regarded as acceptable and will be little different than those associated with the consented and still extant scheme for retail and leisure uses at the site.
9.10 The archaeology and heritage related effects and impacts of the proposed development can be regarded as acceptable and will be little different than those associated with the consented and still extant scheme for retail and leisure uses at the site.
9.11 The noise related effects and impacts of the proposed development can be regarded as acceptable and are little different than those associated with the consented and still extant scheme for retail and leisure uses at the site.
43 | P a g e
9.12 The drainage and flood risk related effects and impacts of the proposed development can be regarded as acceptable and will be little different than those associated with the consented and still extant scheme for retail and leisure uses at the site.
9.13 The air quality related effects and impacts of the proposed development can be regarded as acceptable and will be less than those associated with the consented and still extant scheme for retail and leisure uses at the site.
9.14 By reference to other matters, including crime considerations, energy, utilities and sustainability and effects on ground conditions and related topics, the proposed development can be regarded as acceptable and related effects will be little different than those associated with the consented and still extant scheme for retail and leisure uses at the site.
9.15 Importantly, the economic and social values benefits that the proposed development will deliver can be regarded as significant and represent important material considerations to be given great weight in support of the planning application.
9.16 We have considered the decision making framework and how planning policy should be considered. In turn this influenced a detailed assessment of relevant planning policy applying to the site and proposed development. This focused on development plan policy but also considered national planning policy. The key findings of this assessment allowed the key conclusion to be drawn that the planning application and the proposed development it seeks planning permisison for can be regarded as according with development plan policy. This is also the case with regard to national planning policy. Based on this key conclusion the planning application can and should be granted planning permisison.
9.17 Our overall conclusion is that the planning application for the proposed development can not only be regarded as according with development plan and other relevant planning policy, but it also satisfies other relevant planning tests, and will deliver an important and we would say much needed development, which in turn will deliver many economic and social values benefits to the town of Chorley and wider borough. In essence, it is a planning application that, by reference to the proposed development it seeks planning permisison for, should be welcomed, supported and granted planning permission.
44 | P a g e