The Development Strategy of the Plan

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 1 - THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY OF THE PLAN

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 1

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY OF THE PLAN

Explanatory Note:

Throughout the major part of my report, I have tried to reflect the format of the DP. However there are a number of significant and interrelated policies to which objections have been received and which, because of their importance and effect on the general development strategy underlying the plan, I feel it to be necessary to deal with at the outset. These objections concern Policies H2, R8, RNEW, T4 and T5. As part of my consideration of these policies it has also been necessary for me to deal with the detailed site specific objections made concerning development at: the main urban centre of Preston, the Strategic Location for Development at Goosnargh/Whittingham (including Whittingham Hospital-Policy SS32); Broughton and Broughton Bypass; and Grimsargh. Following individual consideration of these matters I summarise my overall conclusions on the settlements concerned. Detailed consideration of other site specific objections not specifically involved with the development strategy are dealt with later in the report under the relevant policy headings concerned. I now set out briefly the basis of the objections made to Policies H2, R8, RNEW, T4 and T5.

Policy H2

Objections to Policy H2 relate to the Council's estimates and proposals for housing allocations and, as such, are central to the whole basis of the development strategy of the plan. The adopted LSP requires the Council to make provision for about 7200 new residential units in the District for the period Mid-1991 and Mid-2006.

Policies R8 and RNEW

Objections were made to DP Policy R8 (Rural Villages) concerning its linkage to what is now LSP settlement policy i.e.: Policy 6(b), Strategic Location for Development at Goosnargh/Whittingham; Policy 7, Consolidation and Expansion at Broughton: and Policy 8, Development within or by way of rounding-off at Grimsargh.

In January 1997 the Council proposed, in response to these objections: under PIC/01/R8, to maintain Policy R8 for fewer named villages (Barton, Woodplumpton and Lea Town); and, under PIC/01/RNEW, to create a new policy, Policy RNEW, for Goosnargh/Whittingham, Broughton and Grimsargh. Policy RNEW however referred to the construction of Broughton Bypass and subsequently in March 1997 the Council decided to delete this proposal from the DP. Consequently a recommendation was made at the inquiry for a change to amend the wording of Policy RNEW (B) to reflect this. The following further change is therefore recommended by the Council:

"..(B) At Broughton, development comprising consolidation and expansion of the built up-area will only be considered when appropriate highway improvements/traffic management measures have been agreed and commenced. Such consideration will be undertaken in the context of the

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 2

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

overall development requirements in Preston at the time the local plan is reviewed in 2001 and the likely impact on the form and character of the village. .."

In addition to general policy objections, a number of site specific objections are made relating to all three settlements defined in Policy RNEW. For completeness I deal with these site specific matters below as I consider the approach to these matters to be central to the manner in which the Council have approached the interpretation of LSP policy.

Policy T4

The DP contained provision for a Broughton Bypass under Policy T4. Objections made to the provisions of the DP by the LCC as Highway Authority (HA) were made, at that time, on the basis that the bypass had not been dealt with in an appropriate manner. Although the DP at that time did safeguard land under Policy T4 for a bypass, it did not show the specific route adopted by the HA. The Council on 31 March 1997, under PIC/01/T4, decided to delete Policy T4 and remove the safeguarded land from the Proposals Map. The LCC and other objectors have objected to this change on the basis that it is considered to bring the local plan out of conformity with the LSP.

Policy T5(a), concerning the D'Urton Lane/Eastway Link Road, is considered to be dependent on the provision of Broughton bypass and hence objections with regard to this scheme have to be considered along with the consideration of objections to Policy T4. These two matters are dealt with under the heading of "Site Specific Matters - Broughton".

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 3

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.1 HOUSING ALLOCATIONS - POLICY H2

Explanatory Note: As referred to above, I first deal with matters of the housing land requirement and supply, Policy H2, because of the many objections that are related to them and because concerns and issues are raised that are fundamental to the basis of the local plan and the Council's approach to the interpretation of the adopted LSP strategy. Also dealt with in this section are objections made in relation to the general objections to the supporting text (HX), omissions to the housing policies (HO), and general objections to Policy H3 as affecting housing supply matters. Objections made under Policy H2 referring to the non-allocation of specific sites within the plan are dealt with in Section 1.3.

Objections : O/71/8/HX NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/71/10/H2 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/71/12/H3 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/87/2/H2 AIREY MAUDSLEY AND MURPHY O/89/4/H0 HOUSE BUILDERS FEDERATION O/89/5/HX HOUSE BUILDERS FEDERATION O/89/9/H2 HOUSE BUILDERS FEDERATION O/92/1/H0 WIMPEY HOMES HOLDINGS LIMITED O/92/3/H2 WIMPEY HOMES HOLDINGS LIMITED O/94/1/H2 WIMPEY HOMES NORTH WEST O/94/2/H2 WIMPEY HOMES NORTH WEST O/116/1/H0 BELLWAY HOMES LIMITED O/121/5/H2 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD O/121/6/H2 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD O/123/1/H2 CHORLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL O/133/1/H2 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS O/133/5/H2 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS O/140/1/H2 MR R JACKSON & MR W SPENCER O/169/2/H2 TRUSTEES OF DICKSON ESTATE O/173/2/H2 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD O/173/8/H2 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD O/175/4/H2 MORRIS HOMES LTD

OPC/133/8/H2 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS

PBC Response nos. : CD9, PBC/2,3a,4,4a,26,27,27a,27f,28a,29a,65,67 & 79

ISSUES

1.1.1 Whether provision for the accommodation of new housing is sufficient having regard to: the nature of the housing land requirement the components of the housing land supply the extent to which the proposed supply will satisfy the requirement

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 4

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

The Nature of the Housing Land Requirement

The Strategic Requirement

1.1.2 The LSP requires, under Policy 43, that: "out of a total county housing requirement of about 67,400, provision will be made in Preston Borough for about 7,200 new dwellings in the period mid-1991 and mid-2006.". This policy indicates that: "this figure provides for household change and for the replacement of dwellings cleared or lost from the housing stock through change of use in the period mid-1991 to mid-2006.". It is also stated that: "this general housing provision will be met through: (a) the use of derelict and degraded land (including clearance sites) and greenfield sites for housing; and (b) net gains to the housing stock as a result of the conversion of non-residential buildings to residential use and the sub-division of residential properties into smaller units; and (c) net gains in the provision of residential caravans.".

1.1.3 Objection is made by the HBF and Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd that the plan should explicitly state such a requirement in a specific policy of the plan. Having regard to the need for the Council to ensure that the structure plan requirement is met, I consider that the objections made concerning the omission of such a general overall policy within the plan have some merit. In my view, provision must be made in the plan to provide a reasonable prospect that no less than 7200 net additional dwellings will be provided between mid-1991 and mid-2006 and the Council's intention to comply with this should be made explicit. The Council's view that such a policy would be an intention or objective and not a policy or an action to be pursued, does not in my view give sufficient weight to what I consider to be a specific requirement of the LSP. Moreover, and notwithstanding that an adopted local plan cannot be used as a mechanism for circumventing the structure plan or that the LCC have not issued a statement of non-conformity on this matter, it is still necessary for the plan to be explicit. Consequently I consider that an additional policy as suggested by the HBF and Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd objectors should be incorporated in the plan.

Contingency Provision

1.1.4 The Council point to calculations in the LSP which indicate that: "5,628 of the requirement is necessary to cater for the increase in households in the plan period, 148 for an increase in second homes, whilst the remainder (1400) are to replace those of the existing stock which are likely to be demolished.". My attention is also drawn by the Council to the EM of the LSP which recognises, in addition to the above, that: "Gains to the housing stock resulting from the change of use from non-residential to residential use and from the sub-division of residential properties will contribute towards meeting the overall requirement. Housing built on windfall sites will contribute to the overall total. It is recognised that District Councils will not need to identify sites for the total requirement in local plans if an allowance for the contribution from these other sources is made and can be demonstrated as being reasonable and realistic.".

1.1.5 In accordance with this advice the Council quantified the contribution that was considered to be forthcoming from other sources in order to determine the scale of land allocation which needed to be made in the plan area. Taking into account revisions to CP9 submitted by the Council at the inquiry, the Council indicate that the 3360 dwellings from the existing and

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 5

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

proposed housing supply, together with 2965 from construction from mid-1991 to 1 January 1997 and 1030 from allowance sources, will produce a total of 7335 dwellings which is in excess of the LSP requirement by some 155.

1.1.6 A number of objectors including Chorley Borough Council and Redrow Homes Lancs Ltd object to the small surplus of proposed housing provision in the plan compared to the number of dwellings required by the LSP. I have some sympathy with this view in that I consider that a surplus of 155 dwellings or 2% provides very little flexibility within the plan and very little safeguard or contingency for a situation where even one major housing site, either committed or allocated, fails to come forward in the plan period. As such I consider that, given the very real uncertainties that are attached to the quantification of the housing land requirement, the plan should include an additional "contingency" provision. This in my view is necessary to ensure that sufficient land is available to ensure the provision of the structure plan requirement within the plan period as well as the requirement under PPG3 to provide an adequate and continuous supply of land for housing that is genuinely available. 1.1.7 The extent of such a contingency element does however have to be assessed against the need to ensure compatibility with the overall structure plan strategy for Preston Borough and the need to ensure that uncertainties inherent within the detailed calculations of the housing requirement are taken into account.

Compatibility with the LSP Housing Requirements

1.1.8 The strategy of the LSP contains various strands. Strand 7 seeks to protect "Strategic Areas of Restraint, i.e areas of Green Belt and high grade agricultural land, from inappropriate development.". These restraint features are particularly common and co-extensive in South West Lancashire, in the districts of South Ribble and West Lancashire Districts, but not in Preston Borough. Strand 3 places "an emphasis on investment and development and redevelopment along the North-South spine" which includes Preston Borough. Strand 4 places "an emphasis on investment and development and redevelopment along the West-East corridor of the County" which again includes Preston Borough. Specific reference is made to the "strategic location for development" at Goosnargh/Whittingham as being included within both of these strands. In that the urban area of Preston and its immediate surroundings lie at the junction of the two development strands of the County, it is clear to me therefore that the LSP strategy clearly involves the promotion of development in this area. Moreover RPG13 indicates that Lancashire has the capacity to accommodate its own housing requirements and to contribute to the modest shift in emphasis to the north/south spine, as development plans are rolled forward to 2011, without pressure on Green Belt or the best and versatile agricultural land.

1.1.9 However, notwithstanding the above, the Panel endorsed the approach of LCC in promoting a shift in growth towards East Lancashire and concluded that it was desirable to divert more of the pressure on Central Lancashire to East Lancashire and avoid diversion of growth to Preston from Fylde. From a projected total housing requirement of 9378 for Preston, the Panel concluded that there should be a transfer of 750 dwellings from Preston to Blackburn for this purpose. Further transfers were suggested of 200 to South Ribble, 400 to Chorley and 1000 to ROF which, with additions for second homes of 148, gave a recommended provision for Preston of 7180 as being its part of a total county provision of 67,420. This was regarded by the Panel as

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 6

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

a median point in the range of possible outcomes for the county. LCC accepted the Panel's recommendation but with the housing number rounded to the nearest hundred, i.e. 7200 for Preston. In doing this the LCC considered that this gave an appropriate degree of recognition to the uncertainties of forecasting and did not accept the Panels conclusion that the District Councils, especially in Central Lancashire and other areas under pressure, should provide for an appropriate contingency element in their allocations.

1.1.10 The LCC also accepted and made consequential amendments to the migration assumptions in the EM in response to the proposed modifications. Table 9.8 of the EM indicates that during the plan period, taking into account future housing provision, there is a projected net migration loss which almost completely reverses the 1981-1991 trend. The EM of the LSP indicates that: "In Central Lancashire the balance will shift from net influx of population to a slight net outflow as housing policies take effect. A component of this changed trend will be less outward migration to Central Lancashire from metropolitan areas and East Lancashire. Implementation of the Plan's strategies and policies will reduce the level of net outward migration from East lancashire." However whilst Fig 9.2 of the LSP shows some interconnection in migration terms between Chorley and East Lancashire no such relationship between Preston and East Lancashire is indicated.

1.1.11 Given this situation, I have some sympathy with the view of Chorley BC which considers that an under-provision of housing land in Preston could well direct residential pressures to South Ribble and Chorley. Such a situation would undermine the policies of restraint and thus the long term durability of Green Belt boundaries. Having regard to the above it appears to me to be unlikely, even if an additional "contingency element" is incorporated into the housing requirement and taken up during the plan period, that it would lead to a disruption of the strategic balance incorporated in the Structure Plan. Indeed I consider, rather than draw in households from the metropolitan areas which is a situation more likely to occur if extra allocations had been made in Chorley and South Ribble, it would tend to reduce outward migration from Preston Borough and reduce pressure on other Central Lancashire Districts which are more greatly constrained by Green Belt and agricultural land factors.

1.1.12 Moreover, in a letter (Doc 123c Appendix 3) to the West Lancashire District Council, the LCC indicate that: " ..... the + or - 10% factor which is normally acceptable when considering the issue of conformity between Structure and Local Plans.". Consequently I cannot accept the Council's view that the County Council would be likely to see a +10% contingency figure as an issue of non-conformity. In the case of Preston it appears to me more likely, given its strategic development location, that a higher figure may well have been regarded as consistent with the County Strategy had it been felt by the EIP Panel that additional land could be found. At the EIP the Council had clearly argued that the then LSP figure of 8400 additional dwellings for Preston would require a need to find land for some 1970 outside the urban area (excluding anything at Whittingham) and had stressed that of the various possible rural sites all had their disadvantages, not the least being their landscape quality.

1.1.13 The Panels Report on the EIP (CD/LCC/4) summarised Preston's case at that time by stating: "even the plan figure of 8400 would leave a need to find land for 1970 additional dwellings outside the urban area.". Whilst taking the opportunity to plan for some displacement

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 7

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

of growth to East Lancashire it was accepted by the Panel that there was scope, in Chorley and South Ribble at the ROF site, for some additional development consistent with the modest shift to the north south axis suggested by the draft RPG, now included within the published RPG13. However it was considered that to put the full growth required for Central Lancashire in this location would threaten continuous urbanisation at the expense of the green breaks that form part of the Green Belt. This was felt by the Panel to be "too high a price to pay for sparing the rural parts of the Borough of Preston from further development.". The EIP Panel finally settled on a lesser figure of 7180 of which, it was considered, some 750 would still need to be accommodated outside the urban area.

1.1.14 Clearly the situation as now postulated by the Council, that little land is required outside the urban area, is a material change in the circumstances that apparently had existed at that time. It is also significant that the Panel also concluded in relation to housing locations in Central Lancashire that: "Preston, strategically placed at the crossing point of a North-South and East- west axis of development, can and should take further growth. It can do so without breach of Green belt or other constraints and without serious encroachment on attractive landscape.". Taking into account also that the EIP Panel recommended, as now included within the EM of the LSP, that for the Goosnargh/Whittingham area a long term target of 1000 new homes should be catered for, it seems unlikely that a +10% contingency figure would in any way conflict with the LSP strategy. Consequently I am also satisfied that the LSP figure of about 7200 should be regarded as a minimum figure to be planned for up to mid 2006.

1.1.15 In reaching this conclusion I have also had regard to the fact that at the Deposit stage the DP considered that there was a likely surplus, above the 7200 LSP figure, of some 90 dwelling sites under Policy H2 and that further flexibility was provided by Policy H3 sites to the extent of 140 dwelling sites. This indicates to me, notwithstanding that it had not specifically been included as a contingency item, that the Council did not at that stage regard provision for an additional 230 dwelling sites over the 7200 as excessive even though it was accepted by the Council within the plan, at para.9.42, that there could be no contribution to the housing stock from these sites. Having regard to the above I consider that little evidence is adduced by the Council which demonstrates to me that harm would be caused by a contingency element of +10% on the LSP target. However I consider below the effect of reduced clearance on the necessity to include all of this contingency within the housing requirement calculation.

1.1.16 Whilst I have also taken into account objectors' concerns about the uncertainty of the implementation of the LSP allocation at ROF site at Euxton, I consider that any shortfall in the achievement of allocation is not a matter which I should attempt to rectify by additional allocation in Preston Borough. Such a matter is clearly strategic and can only be dealt with by Review of the LSP.

The Components of Housing Land Supply

1.1.17 General objections have been made that the plan allocates insufficient housing land. As part of these, various objections have been made to the individual components of the land supply as calculated by the Council. I now deal with these individually.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 8

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Housing Completions

1.1.18 Wimpey Homes Holdings Limited and Wimpey Homes North West make objection to the fact that the local plan refers to housing completions between 1 July 1991 and 30 April 1996 as being 2060 dwellings whilst the background technical report "Housing Land Availability in Preston 1996-2001" suggests housing completions between 1 April 1991 and 30 March 1996 as only 1969 dwellings. The Council indicated that it carried out a thorough check on completions before the DP was printed when a number of unrecorded completions were discovered. The correct figure is that included in the written statement but an amendment was not made to the technical report. Further amendment has now been incorporated into revisions to CP9 which show the correct number of completions from 1 July 1991, revised to 1 Jan 1997, as 2255.

Dwellings Under Construction

1.1.19 No objections were made to this component of the calculation of housing land supply. The figure at 1 Jan 1997 was indicated by the Council to be 410.

Conversions and Change of Use

1.1.20 The HBF has made specific objection that the supply based on a discounted annual figure for conversion and change of use should be reduced to reflect that it is for just over 10 rather than 15 years. Objection is made by NHS Executive North West and CNT that the Council has over-estimated the allowance for conversions/change of use accepted under the LSP requirement.

1.1.21 The Council in response to the general and unspecific objections examined past trends between 1981 and 1991 when it was found that there was a net gain to the housing stock of some 640 dwelling units. Although a straightforward projection of this rate would suggest a contribution of 960 in the 15 year plan period the Council considered that this rate was unlikely to continue since a significant proportion of the town's larger former dwellings had been converted either to flats or to a non-residential use. The base stock available for conversion, therefore, had been substantially reduced and consequently it was anticipated that the rate could fall to a third of its previous level resulting in a contribution of about 320 dwelling units in the plan period.

1.1.22 A further manual investigation of records between 1 July and 31 December 1991 was carried out by the Council which indicates that just over 300 dwellings have been created by conversion and change of use. This represents an average annual 54 units which if projected over the plan period would result in a further 510 dwellings being provided.

1.1.23 Given that the Council do not propose to increase the anticipated rate of contribution by these means beyond an annual rate of 21 dwellings I do not consider the Council's original estimate for conversions and change of use over the plan period to be over-optimistic.

Unidentified Sites

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 9

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.1.24 General comments on this component of supply, which includes both small sites under 0.4ha and within the range 0.4ha to 1ha, were made by NHS Executive North West and CNT. Although Redrow Homes Lancashire Ltd and the Trustees of Dickson Estate originally made objection to this component of the land supply calculations it was not progressed either at the inquiry or in written representations. The latter two objectors made the point that: "Appendix 1 of the plan sets out a claimed historical rate of completions but then goes on to recognise the declining opportunities from such sites over the remainder of the plan period. The anticipated supply for unidentified sites is therefore proposed as around 30% of the historical rate. The Council's assessment is generally considered appropriate. However the allowance that is made in the plan represents the discounted annual figure over the whole of the 15 year plan period. This therefore includes an element of "double-counting" in respect of those unidentified sites which have been developed in the last five years. The allowance for unidentified sites should, therefore, be reduced to the discounted rate over the remaining 10 years of the plan period, resulting in a further reduction of around 230 dwellings.".

1.1.25 The Council indicate that the local plan figure of 360 dwellings from small sites (160) and windfalls (200) was derived from an extrapolation of the trends which have been experienced in Preston over a ten year period 1984 to 1994. As in the case of conversions/change of use the figures were scaled down from a straight trend projection to reflect declining opportunities. In accordance with para.11 of Annex B of PPG3 no account was taken of dwelling completions which had taken place on sites greater than 1.0ha and no likely contribution from such sites was included in the projections.

1.1.26 The Council has indicated that although some double counting had taken place in the DP this was small and the figure in that plan should have been reduced to 320 for the period from 30 April 1996 to the end of the plan period. However up to 1 January 1997 a total of 195 new dwellings had been completed on this type of site. Consequently in the remainder of the plan period, i.e. 9.5 years from 1 January 1997, the Council has re-adjusted the figure to 270 made up of 125 for small sites and 145 on other windfall sites. Although the figure of 30% mentioned by the objector does not appear in Appendix 1 of the plan, the Council's approach appears to me to represent a discount of about 20% on a projection made from the number of dwellings completed from these sources up to 1 January 1997. As such I consider that these components of the land supply calculation to be reasonable.

Clearance and Replacement

1.1.27 Table 9.7 of the EM to the LSP indicates that of the dwelling requirement of about 7200 some 1400 dwellings were needed as replacements for other dwellings to be demolished during the plan period. The Council argue that, as only some 52 dwellings have been demolished in Preston since 1 July 1991, serious doubt must exist as to whether 1350 demolitions would occur in the remaining 9.5 years of the plan. Consequently it is argued by the Council, that if such demolitions did not occur it must mean that both the LSP and the DP make significant provision for a need which may not arise, and as such there would be a significant margin for error in the housing land supply to cater for needs arising for other reasons.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 10

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.1.28 General comments on this component of supply were made by NHS Executive North West CNT and Redrow Homes Lancashire Ltd. Objection was raised that a significant allowance of 560 dwellings be made for on-site clearance replacement and that this be rejected as being a further large windfall allowance, contrary to national guidance in Annex B to PPG3. It is suggested also that, if clearance fails to take place, there is likely to be a high level of unfit housing which will either remain vacant or occupied by those with limited choice. This is not considered to provide flexibility in the plan or produce a significant margin for error.

1.1.29 It is estimated by the Council that the housing stock contains some 6000 dwellings which are unfit and that, whilst accepting that some remedial action would be provided through improvement and refurbishment, the rate of increase is outstripping remedial action and the actual rate of clearance has declined dramatically in recent years. Given this situation it seems to me that the Council's approach to flexibility in the housing supply would only be achieved at the expense of an attendant decrease in quality of the existing housing stock through increased vacancies. This to my mind is neither good reason to reduce the allowance, as made in the LSP for clearance needs, nor to claim additional flexibility in the housing supply to the full extent of 840 dwellings as the Council do.

1.1.30 Having come to this conclusion I consider however it is realistic that some contribution for replacement on cleared sites is appropriate and consistent with the principles set out in Annex B to PPG3. Para 11 of PPG3 indicates that structure plans need to make clear whether the housing provision figures make provision for losses from demolition. As such I do not consider that provision made from such losses in the local plan can be described as windfall.

1.1.31 However, the extent to which replacement can be expected to contribute to the housing supply, is a matter on which I differ from the Council. To my mind, although the Council put forward the view that there would be a 40% replacement of the dwellings previously accommodated on cleared sites, it could only point to one large site at Plungington which was cleared in the early 1980's where the replacement number of dwellings was in the order of 35%. Although I accept the Council's view that this site also accommodated new shops, car parking and associated landscaping it does not seem unreasonable to me to assume that any other such large areas of clearance would also be likely to accommodate such new facilities.

1.1.32 Moreover, in that the rate of large scale clearance has declined whilst the number of unfit dwellings continues to increase, this suggests to me that smaller sites are likely to be the product of any clearance that does occur. Replacement to the extent of 40% is unlikely on these sites. In the case of such small sites the Council could not point to any significant replacement that had occurred. Consequently, if on such sites unfit dwellings are not cleared then it seems to me that vacancies will result. Such vacancies in the housing stock would need to be accommodated on a 1:1 basis in the housing supply figures. Consequently I conclude that any allowance for such replacements should lie within the range between 0-35%. I consider however, neither the objectors nor the Council have demonstrated that either end of the extremities of such a range is appropriate as an average. Consequently whilst I consider an average allowance of more than 25% is unlikely to be achieved, to suggest less would not allow for the possibility of some larger clearance schemes being undertaken later in the plan period. Such a 25% figure would reduce the Council's allowance for these purposes from 560 to 350 dwellings, some 210 less.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 11

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.1.33 Given this situation the Council's approach would be to claim an additional flexibility allowance within the plan of 1050 dwellings. For the reasons I have given above I consider such an approach to be wrong in principle. However I do accept it to be likely that a high proportion of refurbishment will take the place of large scale clearance. I conclude therefore that it would in this case be reasonable to reduce the +10% contingency figure I have postulated by some 50%. Such a contingency would as a consequence require an additional 360 dwellings sites to be catered for.

Committed Approvals

1.1.34 This component of the housing land supply calculations includes sites which presently, i.e at 1 January 1997, have valid planning permission for residential development and CNT 7(1) sites which have the Secretary of States approval under the provisions of Section 7(1) of the New Towns Act 1981.

1.1.35 With regard to existing planning permissions, general comments on this component of supply were made by NHS Executive North West and Chorley BC asserts that: "there is an over-reliance on the assumed production of dwellings from committed approvals and insufficient sites are allocated for housing in the local plan. As a result it is likely that the provisions of PPG3 in terms of maintaining a supply of genuinely available land in locations where people wish to live will not be met."

1.1.36 At the end of April 1996, sites with planning permission had a potential capacity of some 586 dwellings. The Council, in accordance with a DoE commissioned report by Roger Tym and Partners "Housing Land Availability" assumed a "drop out" rate of 10% which meant at that time a contribution of 525 dwellings towards meeting the requirement could be anticipated. Up to the 1 January 1997 construction of 49 dwellings had started and new permissions for a further 58 dwellings had been granted, a net increase of 9 dwellings. Consequently the equivalent figure for 1 January 1997 after discounting 10% for "drop out" is determined as 535. In my view there can be little criticism of the manner in which the Council has arrived at this figure. With regard to the above objection by Chorley BC this is a matter which I deal with below and as part of my conclusions on the extent to which the proposed supply will satisfy the requirement.

CNT Sites

1.1.37 With regard to CNT sites this component of the housing land supply provoked more objection than any other. CNT themselves are concerned that the residual capacity of sites in their ownership appears to have been over-estimated.

1.1.38 Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd and Wimpey Homes North West additionally object to the expectation that major CNT sites at Cottam and Ingol will be developed within the plan period and consider it unreasonable for the Council to assume that the only aspect of housing land supply which may be subject to slippage are sites with planning permission. The HBF, the Trustees of Dickson Estate and Redrow Homes also object to the fact that CNT sites are not subject to 10% slippage factor applied to all other sites with planning permission.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 12

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.1.39 With regard to CNT 7(1) sites the Council and the CNT agreed prior to the inquiry that the areas available for housing at Cottam, Longsands and Ingol East was 49.38ha, 8.34ha and 11.2ha respectively. This, in the Council's view, produced a reduction in site area from that previously included in the housing requirement calculations which resulted in the residual capacity of the land falling by some 75 dwellings to a total of 2115. This figure was included in the Council's revisions set out in CP9. In terms of the capacities of the sites, for sites where detailed approval has been granted by the Commission to a particular developer, the exact densities have been used by the Council whilst in other cases a density of 25 dwellings per ha was applied to the site area. It is this latter figure that constitutes the main difference between the CNT and the Council and at the time the Council revised CP9 there was a consistent estimate of the difference in dwelling capacity between the two parties amounting to 288 dwellings.

1.1.40 However after the issue of the DP in September 1996, the Council, in December of that year, received a plan from CNT, CD/GOV/52, titled Cottam Hall West - Development Strategy Plan which showed individual site boundaries and estimated numbers of dwellings per site. This plan resulted in a slight reduction in the remaining land for housing at Cottam from the previously agreed figure of 49.3ha down to 48.78ha but with a corresponding increase in dwelling yield from 1179 to 1246 and at the same time excluded a 1.93ha Site (J1) at Cottam which had only recently been identified at public meetings as a site more likely to be promoted for district centre uses. These recent changes have therefore, in the view of CNT, resulted in an overall residual capacity of 1189 dwellings at Cottam, some 10 more than previously.

1.1.41 In addition, CNT indicate that they are prepared to be flexible about the provision of land for affordable housing and accept that some allowance should be made for this figure. Using the average density of 33 dwellings per ha this is considered to result in a total additional yield of about 70 dwellings at Cottam. Such a figure would include for the provision of some 200 affordable dwellings on sites K1,K2,N1,N2 & N3 and compares favourably with the Council's own suggested allocation for such purposes. Consequently it is argued that the revised residual supply on the three large CNT sites should be 1907, some 208 fewer than the Council's assumed figure of 2115.

1.1.42 The Commission owns the majority of that element of the housing land supply falling under the heading existing commitments. The rate and level of housing provision from those sites which have section 7(1) approval will, subject to market conditions, be determined by the Commission. Given that the Council is to a very large extent dependent on the Commission's indications of its intentions for their sites, it is clear that there must be considerable uncertainty concerning the Council's assumed figures. The Council point to the existence of earlier plans and the unattractive argument of CNT that development in the western areas of Cottam is planned for a low density. This, in the Council's view, requires additional land to be allocated contrary to the provisions of PPG13 and PPG3 that land in urban areas should be maximised. Whilst I have some sympathy with this view it does not alter the fact that the Council have little control over this matter without the agreement of the CNT who in turn are charged with the duty to produce the best value in the disposal of their land assets. Consequently on this matter I accept that it is likely that provision on CNT land will not meet the Council's wishes and as such I consider that this component of the housing supply calculations should be reduced by some 208 dwellings over the plan period.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 13

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Slippage - CNT Sites

1.1.43 The Council does not accept that CNT sites are unlikely to be developed within the plan period. It indicates that CNT anticipate disposal of sites in Cottam by the end of 2002, some 3.5 to 4 years before the end of the plan period. Very little of their land at Longsands is still available and whilst it is accepted that Ingol sites have some difficulties to be overcome prior to their development, the Council consider that such difficulties could easily be overcome in the plan period. CNT has not disputed this and such sites would in any case remain commitments under the New Towns Act.

1.1.44 The Council points out, with regard to New Town land, that CNT, like the Development Corporation before it, is a single minded agency for securing the disposal of land in its ownership and there have been few local examples of sites not being developed. Although Longsands Site 11 has been omitted as a commitment in the DP because of ground contamination factors this is the only example that has arisen in Preston.

1.1.45 Whilst I accept that "drop out" is far more likely to occur in the non-CNT sites because of the greater likelihood of speculative planning applications and ownership problems it seems to me that the development of CNT sites is not absolutely certain. Clearly Ingol Site 11 had been incorporated into the DP as a "certainty" and this has not proved to be the case. With regard to parcels 15,16,17, and 18 of the Ingol East Section 7(1) area that still remains to be developed, whilst I accept that a major legal constraint which delayed active marketing of the sites until December 1993 has been overcome there still remain problems over the acquisition of land from a third party, the LCC, to enable the construction of a distributor road.

1.1.46 The County Surveyor indicates, October 1997, that whilst the CNT and the LCC have discussed the matter, no formal negotiations have taken place over the acquisition of the land. The CNT have recently appointed consultants to make detailed recommendations for the development of the four housing sites. The brief requires the consultants to give detailed consideration to the highway and access arrangements and, along with other matters, to look at alternative options and to have regard to the views of local people, particularly the "green wedge" group. "The Green Wedge" are a local pressure group who consider that the area should remain substantially open as countryside or open area contributing to the open space system.

1.1.47 Although these areas can only be regarded as a commitment for housing, the appointment of consultants by CNT demonstrates to me that there are complex issues to resolve. Moreover the brief of the consultants is to make specific recommendations for a development strategy which represents an equitable strategy, indicating to me that there could be some uncertainty about the capacity of the sites to accommodate the 280 dwellings assumed by the Council.

1.1.48 However, in reaching these conclusions on the matter of slippage concerning CNT sites, whilst I consider that it is over-optimistic of the Council to assume 100% completions on the CNT sites I do not consider it appropriate to use the "normal" 10% discount used for other sites with planning permission. In my view it is more realistic to use a lesser figure of 5% which I

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 14

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

consider would take into account the differences between the CNT and other applicants for planning permission.

1.1.49 In conclusion, having regard to the above, I consider that the component of the housing supply attributable to CNT sites has been over-estimated by the Council to the extent of 95 dwellings (i.e. 5% of 1907). This results in the CNT contribution to the existing land supply being reduced to 1812 dwellings rather than 2115 as calculated by the Council. In reaching this conclusion I am also mindful that the CNT contribution still represents 77% of the total existing land supply within the Borough. This to my mind illustrates a considerable degree of inflexibility in housing land provision in the plan and whilst I accept that CNT is a principal enabler of housing development in Preston it is also charged with the duty to obtain the best value in the disposal of its assets. Consequently I consider the certainty which the Council attach to this component of the existing supply to be open to some question. SUMMARY

1.1.50 Having regard to my conclusions above, the Council, whilst accepting that uncertainty does exist, has calculated the housing requirement taking into account a more optimistic approach of expected contributions to the housing supply than I consider can actually be justified.

1.1.51 I have concluded above that additional land allocations should be made to take into account less on-site replacement after clearance (210 dwelling sites), slippage and density on CNT sites (303 dwellings sites) and that whilst in normal circumstances a contingency allowance of +10% should be catered for this should be reduced by 50% to take account of a significant reduction in the amount of clearance likely to take place in the plan period.

1.1.52 As such I consider that the plan should make provision for some 7560 housing sites and that adjusted cumulative contribution from the above sources (from a base date of 1 January 1997) should be as follows:

Source of Dwelling Units Completions since mid-1991 2255 Dwellings under construction 410 Completions (conversion/change of use) 300 Sub-total - building to date 2965 Allowance: conversions/change of use 145 Allowance: small sites (under 0.4ha) 125 Allowance: on-site replacement after clearance 350 Sub-total - Allowances 620 Sites approved under New Towns Act 1812 Sites with planning permission 535 Sub-total - existing land supply 2347

Total 5932

1.1.53 Consequently the above table identifies that some 5932 dwellings have either been completed, already allowed for, or are already available on existing sites. This total, however,

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 15

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

still falls some 1628 dwelling sites short of the number that I consider the plan should make provision for if the structure plan target of about 7200 new residential units is to be achieved and an acceptable choice of sites supplied, which are both suitable and available.

1.1.54 I have, in later sections of my report, concluded that provision for additional dwelling sites should be made at the Strategic Location for Development at Goosnargh/Whittingham, at Broughton and at Grimsargh. The additional allocations recommended would be sufficient to enable the LSP housing requirement to be met.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.1.1) the revision of Appendix 1 to accord with my conclusions set out above and the inclusion of the revised table as set out in Para.1.1.52 of this report

(REC.1.2) the inclusion within the plan of a new policy making clear the LSP housing requirement for the area.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 16

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.2 POLICIES R8 AND RNEW DEVELOPMENT IN DESIGNATED RURAL SETTLEMENTS:

Explanatory Note: Before dealing with the Site Specific matters related to Policies H2, R8 and RNEW I first deal with the policy objections and implications of Policies R8 and RNEW. The objections to Policies R8 and RNEW are wholly bound together with considerations concerning Policies 5 to 8 & 12 of the LSP. Consequently I have felt it necessary to consider the policy objections to Policy R8 and RNEW in relation to these LSP policies. Objection is made by the Rural Development Commission (RDC) that a clear statement covering the social and economic well being of the rural communities of the Borough should be added to the plan. The Council accept that such an addition be made with the editorial assistance of the RDC but no form of words is before me for my consideration. Any such amendment will need to be included for consideration at the modification stage.

Objections :

Policy R8 O/71/1/R8 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/128/5/R8 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (CW) O/128/6/R8 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (CW) O/128/7/R8 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (CW)

O/89/1/R8 HOUSE BUILDERS FEDERATION O/92/7/R8 WIMPEY HOMES HOLDINGS LIMITED O/176/1/R8 PETER HIGHAM AND CO O/121/7/R8 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD O/169/3/R8 TRUSTEES OF DICKSON ESTATE O/98/2/R8 GRIMSARGH PARISH COUNCIL O/121/1/R8 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD O/165/1/R8 MR W J BRIGGS (CW) O/141/1/R8 MR J HEATON O/4/1/R8 HAIGHTON GREEN ESTATES

Policy RNEW OPC/71/37/Rnew NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST OPC/116/7/Rnew BELLWAY HOMES LIMITED OPC/92/9/Rnew WIMPEY HOMES HOLDINGS LIMITED OPC/128/42/Rnew LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL OPC/128/43/Rnew LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL OPC/128/44/Rnew LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL OPC/701/1/R8 MR & MRS R G WOOLLAM OPC/124/9/Rnew HAIGHTON PARISH COUNCIL & HAIGHTON & GRIMSARGH AC OPC/4/2/Rnew HAIGHTON GREEN ESTATES OPC/98/4/Rnew GRIMSARGH PARISH COUNCIL OPC/700/1/Rnew MR D J HINDLE OPC/8/3/Rnew CONCERN FOR BROUGHTON

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 17

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Whittingham Hospital Policy SS32

O/70/63/SS32 GONW (CW) O/71/18/SS32 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/98/3/SS32 GRIMSARGH PARISH COUNCIL (CW) O/147/1/SS32 WHITTINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL O/124/6/SS32 HAIGHTON PARISH COUNCIL AND HAIGHTON AND GRIMSARGH O/154/8/SS32 RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION

OPC/71/36/SS32 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST

Policy Omissions

O/157/7/R0 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (CW) O/169/4/R0 TRUSTEES OF DICKSON ESTATE O/121/8/R0 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD O/121/2/R0 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD

PBC Response nos: PBC/CP4,PBC1,3,26,26a,26b,26c & 96

ISSUES:

1.2.1 Whether Policies R8 and RNEW are in general conformity with the LSP, as required by Section 46(2) of the TCPA 1990, having regard to the provisions of Policies 5 to 10 and 12 of the LSP, the status and interpretation of the EM, and the manner in which the policies of the LSP should be reflected in the local plan.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Policies 5 to 10 of the LSP

1.2.2 Policies 5 to 10 of the LSP form the "Towns and Villages" section of the LSP. This section sets out a series of policies which include: Policy 5 "Main Urban Areas"; Policy 6 "Strategic Locations for Growth"; Policy 7 "Development at Other Settlements"; Policy 8 "Development within, or by way of rounding off, their built up area will be provided at the following settlements.."; Policy 9 "Development in the following settlements will be restricted to.."; Policy 10 "Development in Rural Settlements Outside Green Belts".

1.2.3 The Council, within CP4, makes it clear that it has considered these policies on the basis they constitute a "hierarchy of development policies" within which it has been able to provide for all its growth requirements by the application of LSP Policies 5 and 6. This interpretation of LSP policies, which has the hallmark of the sequential approach advocated for identifying additional sites for retail development in Revised PPG6, is, in my view, fundamentally flawed. It is not justified either by LSP policy or within its EM or, as yet, by Government guidance. My understanding of the term "hierarchy of policies", which clearly is the manner in which the Council have applied it, is that it is an organisation of policies in graded ranks, each rank

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 18

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

controlling that below it. Other than the fact that the EIP panel refer within their report, under the heading of "The Categorisation of Smaller Settlements", to the system of categorisation as being:"..., broadly speaking, a hierarchy.." there is nothing within the LSP which suggests to me the justification of such an approach being taken involving the areas of urban concentration or strategic growth locations. In fact, on the policy of urban concentration, the Panel had concluded that whilst such an approach accords with Government priorities "At the same time it is reasonable to allow for a modest element of growth in small towns and rural villages.".

1.2.4 LSP policies 5 to 10 are independent policies relating to different areas within the County. As such, they do not provide the opportunity for local plans to undertake a review of the specific requirements of the individual policies. The Council has, in the application of these development policies, approached the task in the manner of a sequential approach which is neither justified in LSP policy or, as yet, by Government guidance. Given this situation I now consider it necessary to appraise the Council's approach to each relevant LSP policy to determine the extent to which such an approach has or has not led to the development proposals of the plan being out of conformity with the LSP.

1.2.5 In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the Government White Paper published in February 1998, "Planning for the Communities of the Future", which indicates that the Government intend, as part of a revision of PPG3, to provide guidance on a sequential approach to selecting locations for new housing development and sites. However no guidance exists at present and the White Paper indicates at para.63 that: "The approach should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate local needs, such as the expansion of villages.". As such I do not consider there to be any justification for the Council's sequential approach to its housing allocations.

LSP Policy 6 - Strategic Locations for Development

1.2.6 The LSP seeks to concentrate future development within the existing main urban areas and transport corridors or at selected new growth points known as strategic growth locations. The urban initiatives within the main urban areas listed within LSP Policy 5 constitute the strategic locations for development under LSP Policy 6A. Within Preston Borough, the strategic locations for growth constitute the main urban area of Preston (LSP Policy 6A) and the proposed new growth point of Goosnargh/Whittingham (LSP Policy 6B).

LSP Policy 6(A) - Urban Initiatives

1.2.7 The Council considers that the plan makes effective use of land within the urban area of Preston by allocating the majority of new housing to this area as a first priority. Notwithstanding this situation, there still remain objections to the non allocation of several large sites in or adjacent to Preston town which I deal with below as part of the site specific objections made to the DP. My considerations and conclusions on these sites have regard to my conclusions with regard to Policy H2 and the manner in which the Council have approached the allocation of land for housing concerning LSP policy.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 19

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

LSP Policy 6(B) - Development At Goosnargh/Whittingham

1.2.8 Policy 6(b), identifies Goosnargh/Whittingham as one of three Strategic Locations for Development in the County. The policy provides that "Development at these locations will provide for a variety of new uses which may include business, retailing (to serve local needs), housing, leisure, open spaces and nature conservation. Development will take place within the context of a comprehensive approach to each area incorporating such elements as phasing infrastructure, public transport, environmental interests and the needs of nature conservation.".

1.2.9 The Council considers, having been able to provide for all its growth requirements in the main urban area at Preston and at Whittingham Hospital, that the allocations reflect the structure plan strategy. Allocation is made within the plan, under Policy H2, for some 375 dwellings at Whittingham Hospital. Because of the nature of the objections to Policy R8 of the DP and to Policy RNEW, as proposed to be changed, it is necessary for me to consider this allocation within the separate contexts of these policies.

Policy R8

1.2.10 The basis of the objections by the HBF and the LCC to Policy R8 of the DP is that it limits the scale of development in the settlement of Goosnargh/Whittingham to a level below that conveyed by Structure Plan Policy 6(b). LCC also consider that the policy would prejudice the achievement of mixed development patterns under Policy 12 of the LSP. As such the allocation is not considered to be in conformity with the LSP. Similar objection is made by NHS Executive North West. There were however also 52 statements of support for Policy R8. The Council, under PIC/01/RNEW, attempted to clarify this matter by promoting a new policy RNEW which removed the 3 settlements in question from Policy R8 and set out separately the enhanced status of each settlement in relation to LSP Policies 6,7 and 8. LCC, whilst supporting the retained part of Policy R8 for each settlement, does not accept this change and maintained its objection to all other aspects of Policy RNEW.

1.2.11 Within the LSP, Goosnargh/Whittingham is identified as a Strategic Growth Location, The supporting text for Policy R8 in the DP states at Paras.4/49 - 4/50 that: "Para.4/49...The Borough Council considers that the anticipated development needs of Preston (as defined by the Structure Plan) can be met without further expansion of these settlements (other than that proposed at Goosnargh/Whittingham for the former hospital site - ... Policy SS32)...... Para.4/50... The Structure Plan policies regarding these settlements .... are seen as an indication of where development might take place in the longer term, and options will more appropriately be considered as part of a future review of the local plan.". This confirms the approach of the Council set out in CP4.

1.2.12 Consequently Policy R8 makes no provision for development as promoted by Policies 6, 7 and 8 of the LSP apart from that promoted at Whittingham Hospital Site under Policy SS32. Moreover, neither Policy R8 nor its supporting text in the DP makes any reference, other than repeating LSP policy, to any intention of the Council to regard Goosnargh/Whittingham as a Strategic Location for Growth. Furthermore Policy R8, which is a policy covering all rural villages in Preston Borough, makes no reference to the proposals made for

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 20

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Goosnargh/Whittingham, Broughton and Grimsargh in the LSP. The Council indicates that it has attempted to "clarify" this matter by promoting Policy RNEW which removed the 3 settlements in question from Policy R8 setting out separately the enhanced status of each settlement in relation to LSP policies 6, 7 and 8. In my view, and notwithstanding my conclusions on Policy H2, in suggesting this amendment to Policy R8 the Council has clearly gone far beyond the mere clarification of this policy. In proposing the amendments under RNEW, the Council has itself recognised that Policy R8 is not in conformity with the LSP.

CONCLUSIONS - POLICY R8

1.2.13 Having regard to the above, I share the view of many objectors that Policy R8 is deficient in that it does not pay due regard to adopted LSP policy and I consider it to be out of conformity with the LSP. As such the policy should be deleted and replaced. I now consider the objections to Policy RNEW and whether this policy constitutes an acceptable replacement to Policy R8.

Policy RNEW

1.2.14 Policy RNEW(A), as proposed by the Council, states: "At Goosnargh/Whittingham which is a Strategic Location for Growth, development will be in accordance with policy SS32.". However Policy SS32, as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/SS32, refers only to development at Whittingham Hospital and, whilst referring to a specific allocation of dwelling units, makes it clear that the number of dwellings should not exceed 375. No significant evidence was advanced by the Council to justify such a restrictive policy in this strategic growth location. Whilst the Council considers that such references both clarify the development proposals for Goosnargh/Whittingham and for the area as a Strategic Location for Growth, I am not so convinced.

1.2.15 LSP Policy 6(b) indicates that: "...Development will take place within the context of a comprehensive approach to each area incorporating such elements as phasing infrastructure, public transport, environmental interests and the needs of nature conservation.". The Council indicates, within the proposed amended text to Policy RNEW, that "The level and type of development proposed at the Strategic location of Goosnargh/Whittingham is set out in Policy SS32 and has been the subject of extensive consultation both in terms of this local plan and its predecessor PRALP.", and the paragraph goes on to state that: "The scale and mix of development has been determined in the context of overall land use requirements, the settlement hierarchy described above and the environmental capacity of the former Whittingham Hospital site where the development is concentrated.".

1.2.16 Leaving aside the fact that I have concluded that the Council's approach in the use of settlement hierarchy is fundamentally flawed, the need under Policy 6(b) for the Council to take a comprehensive approach to each area specified by the policy has not been complied with. The Council made it clear at the inquiry that no environmental appraisal had been undertaken of the Goosnargh/Whittingham area and the above proposed supporting text to Policy RNEW indicates to me that it had relied only on its appraisal of the former Whittingham Hospital site. This conflicts with the provisions of LSP Policy 6(b) which, at the same time as superseding the

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 21

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

provisions of the PRALP and any consultations on that plan, clearly required that a comprehensive approach be taken to the development of the Goosnargh/Whittingham area as a Strategic Location for Growth. The fact that local consultation has taken place on the DP, does not overcome the lack of a comprehensive environmental appraisal which covers the whole area. Without such an appraisal the consultation carried out as part of the DP, concerning the implementation of LSP Policy 6(b), must be considered deficient.

1.2.17 Moreover Para.9/36 of the DP indicates that: "the allocations proposed in the local plan reflect those of Supplementary Planning Guidance and do not suggest further development, despite the area being put forward as a Strategic Location for Development...". This suggests to me that the allocation of 375 dwelling units was fixed well before the outcome of the LSP process and that there has been, by the Council, little attempt since to marry the proposal to adopted LSP policy. This is confirmed by the Council's representation made to the EIP Panel on Issue 7-Development in Central Lancashire where it was stated that: "... the hospital site forms the basis for the strategic location under Policy 35 (now Policy 6) although it is considered that the brief conforms with, current, statutory development plan provision, rather than the emerging structure plan. ... ". Further weight is given to this view by the fact that the Council's proposals for redevelopment of the "brownfield" hospital site would not require a strategic location policy, as they could be accommodated under LSP Policy 1 (c)(iii) as the re-use or redevelopment of a major developed site.

1.2.18 Having regard to the above, I again share the view of many objectors that Policy RNEW is deficient in that it does not pay due regard to adopted LSP policy and that it is not in conformity with the LSP. In reaching this conclusion I have not, up to now, taken into account the status and interpretation of the EM. The interpretation given to the EM of the LSP by the Council is different to that given by the LCC and other objectors.

The Status and Interpretation of the EM to the LSP

1.2.19 Para.5.6.4 of the EM of the LSP which concerns Policy 6(b) states: "In Policies 6(b) and (c) development should be on a scale that supplements the existing development base to the extent that satisfactory levels of infrastructure can be provided and the requirements of Policy 12 on Mixed Development met. In this regard a long term target of 1000 new homes should be catered for.". Para.5.6.9 states: "Goosnargh/Whittingham is well related to the County's north-south strategic transport corridor. This coincides with the Region's north south spine. Local road improvements will be needed, including the Broughton Bypass scheme (Policy 34). This bypass will be part of a package of measures designed to improve the local environment and provide better conditions for public transport, cyclists and pedestrians). A development at Goosnargh/Whittingham with a long term prospect of 1000 dwellings will yield finance for infrastructure and community facilities. This will include making a financial contribution towards the cost of constructing the Broughton Bypass and the cost of enhanced bus services to the area. Implementation of development will be contingent on satisfying Policy 15. This would preclude major development in the absence of satisfactory traffic solutions.".

1.2.20 The Council points out that, whilst the LCC and other objectors argue that the plan should recognise Goosnargh/Whittingham not only as a strategic location but also with a quantified

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 22

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

number of dwellings to be built within the local plan period and beyond, the statutory weight of the Development Plan applies only to its policies. Moreover the Council refers to the fact that as a matter of law the legal requirement of general conformity is with the Development Plan and not, in the case of the structure plan, with its EM. Nevertheless it is accepted by the Council that the EM is a material consideration which has to be taken into account.

1.2.21 The weight that can be attached to the EM of the LSP is dependent on the extent to which the text reflects and explains the policy and the conclusions and recommendations of the EIP Panel and how up-to-date the structure plan is. The LSP is an up-to-date plan and considerable weight must be attached to the fact that the LCC accepted unequivocally the Panel's recommendations. These, in relation to Strategic Locations for Development, including Goosnargh/Whittingham, recommended in relation to the EM that the LCC should: "Modify the Explanatory Memorandum to make clear that if satisfactory levels of infrastructure are to be provided and the requirements of Policy 40 (now Policy 12) on Mixed Developments are to be met, a long term target of 1000 new houses is likely to be needed to supplement the existing development base.". This was accepted by the LCC and incorporated into the EM. Consequently, for the Council to suggest that little weight should be given to such a statement in the interpretation of Policy 6(b) undervalues the consideration given to the concept of Strategic Growth Locations within the EIP process. In my view therefore, express guidance is given by the LSP on the scale of development at this strategic location, and the Council's approach towards the Strategic Growth Location at Goosnargh Whittingham is deficient and out of conformity with the LSP.

1.2.22 I consider, therefore, that clear recognition should be made within the plan, within the supporting text, of the approach taken by the Council towards the implementation of the LSP policy for accommodating the longer term target of 1000 new dwellings at the strategic growth location. Although the EM also makes clear at paras.5.6.12 and 13, under the heading of "Securing a Balanced Development", that: "Policy 6 will be implemented through the preparation of local plans..." and that: "The precise mix and amount of development will be fixed in the appropriate local plan. ..", I do not consider the Council's reliance on the allocation of 375 dwellings at Whittingham Hospital to satisfy LSP Policy 6(b) to be justified. 1.2.23 In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the fact that the Council has not carried out any environmental appraisal of the area and have taken this together with the Councils restrictive approach to Policy SS32 concerning Whittingham Hospital. The reference in Policy SS32 that development at Whittingham Hospital should not exceed 375 dwellings illustrates that there is little, if any, intent on the part of the Council to accommodate longer term growth. Although the Council at the inquiry indicated that it is now content that Goosnargh/Whittingham be recognised as a location for longer term development, within the supporting text of the local plan there is nothing else within the plan that embodies such a recognition.

1.2.24 The Council, at the inquiry, in support of its housing allocation policy for the Goosnargh/Whittingham area point to the fact that LSP Policy 6(b) appears together with 2 other strategic locations, i.e. a) Urban Initiatives and b) the Royal Ordnance Site at Euxton (ROF), the former having no quantification as to the level of development whereas the latter has 1000 dwellings expressly allocated to it within the LSP Policy 43. It is argued by the Council that there is no other policy which quantifies the amount of housing expected at

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 23

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Goosnargh/Whittingham. I consider, however, that such an argument does not adequately take into account the fact that the ROF site straddles two adjacent District boundaries. In my view the different policy approach used for the ROF site merely clarifies the need for a 1000 new dwellings at a location covered by two authorities. Not to have specified the allocation within the policy would have left the real possibility of argument between authorities as to their individual share. Moreover the ROF site was a discrete site whereas Goosnargh/Whittingham still remained to be defined through the preparation of a local plan and further environmental appraisal.

1.2.25 An allocation for the plan period in the order of 375 was re-appraised by the Council as being appropriate to meet the LSP policy approach. However, there is little evidence before me that this re-appraisal started from any other point than the Council's view on housing land supply and taking into account only the previous 1994 Development Brief for Whittingham Hospital. This development brief had previously arrived at a figure of 375 dwellings as being appropriate for the site. The Council had argued at the EIP that the allocation of 375 new houses would satisfy LSP policy and be able to provide for mixed development, recycle "brownfield" land and provide an acceptable level of community benefits. Although the figure of 375 dwellings was before them, the EIP Panel did not accept the Council's view.

1.2.26 The Panel concluded: "... If private developers are to provide the basic infrastructure, and there is to be appropriate provision for balancing employment, a long term target of the order of 1000 new houses seems likely in most cases to be necessary as a supplement to the existing development base. ..". This was further reinforced by the Panel in that, whilst the need only to plan for an additional 750 dwellings in the Borough was recognised, it still found it necessary to emphasize the need, within the EM, that such a strategic location for growth should be planned for on the basis of a longer term prospect of 1000 new dwellings.

Viability

Housing

1.2.27 Notwithstanding the above, the Council argued at the inquiry that the viability of 375 dwellings was not before the Panel due to the fact that it had only been able to consider the implications of two options undertaken by Planning Negotiators of 1000 and 1750 dwellings. However this situation had also been made clear to the Panel by the Council and was clearly not considered by the Panel to be material to their conclusions and recommendations. This fact alone suggests to me that the Council's approach to the Goosnargh/Whittingham area as a Strategic Growth Location is an attempt to use the local plan process to review the strategic policies of the structure plan.

1.2.28 Nevertheless, I have taken into account the Council's evidence on this matter although my considerations are hampered to some extent by the fact that the Council chose not to introduce its financial calculations. It was, however, accepted by the Council that the viability calculations put forward by the NHS Executive, criticising the viability of the Council's own proposals, were technically correct and that if a contribution of some £4.3m was found to be necessary to secure the provision of a Broughton Bypass then the likelihood was that a development of only 375 dwellings would be unviable. It is further accepted that using the average price and size of

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 24

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

housing as used by the NHS Executive then, leaving aside the value of the commercial business site, the 375 dwelling site would not be a viable enterprise. The Council also accepted that the difference between the view of the Council, and that proffered on behalf of the NHS Executive, revolves almost entirely around the plausibility of the house price assumptions used. Consequently I now consider these assumptions.

1.2.29 The Council, in forming its view of appropriate house price assumptions, considered that the setting provided by the old hospital tree planting, and its relatively secluded situation away from the main urban area of Preston was of a high order. This was considered to be recognised in the DP through the use of a density of around 20 dwellings per ha. This led to a conclusion that the average dwelling assumed for the purposes of the development appraisal should be a 1240 sq.ft dwelling with an average price of £115,500 as compared to an average proposed by NHS Executive of £85,000.

1.2.30 The Council accepted that if its average house price and suggested housing mix was to be achieved then: approximately 90 units would have to be constructed of about 1800 sq.ft. in size taking about 33% of the site; and about 20% of the site would need to be devoted to affordable housing. This would leave only about half the site available to accommodate a general mix of other housing types. With regard to the 90 large dwelling units, the Council considered that these would be comparable to a development at Uplands Chase consisting of 17 dwellings having an average price of around £200,000. Such a large emphasis on housing of this size and value is surprising, and little evidence is produced by the Council to illustrate such a need. Moreover, little support for such a mix of housing is found in the development brief produced by the Council for Whittingham Hospital.

1.2.31 Para.4.24 of the 1994 Whittingham Hospital Development Brief states that: "... As it is an objective of local plan policy to promote a range of rural house types particularly small dwellings - including housing for rent - a mix of dwelling sizes and densities will be expected within this ceiling. ...". Furthermore Para.4.25 of this brief indicates that only one individual site of 1.2ha is set aside specifically for low density housing. This does not suggest to me that the mix of housing relied upon by the Council to determine viability, and requiring about a third of the site for very low density housing, was at that time contemplated under this brief. To assess the marketing possibilities for about 90 dwellings of this size on the basis of the 17 dwelling site at Uplands Chase seems to me to be an extremely uncertain and subjective exercise.

1.2.32 It was also clear to me, at my site visits, that the Uplands Chase development site and the Whittingham Hospital site are not comparable. The Uplands Chase site is a small housing site, apparently formerly the garden of a large house, where the new large dwellings are set amongst mature trees. The parts of the Whittingham Hospital site envisaged for housing are those that will be formed from the clearance of existing buildings or are currently existing open areas. These are, in general, large sites, and whilst I accept that these are bounded by belts of mature trees, there are few individual mature trees within them. In my view, therefore, the character and appearance of Uplands Chase could not be reproduced easily within these areas. Consequently I am doubtful whether the higher average prices required could be achieved over about 33% of the whole area as would be required if the development is to achieve viability.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 25

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.2.33 On the other hand, the objectors assumptions on house size are based on an analysis of a number and medium range of housing sites within Preston. Having looked at these sites I consider that such dwellings could form the basis of the types and quality of an acceptable and seemingly potentially marketable development at Goosnargh/Whittingham. Such housing is accepted by the Council as not being able to provide a viable development with 375 dwellings. Rather than a "down playing" by the NHS Executive of the attractions of the site and hence the likely realisation value of the properties to be sold, I consider that the Council have tended to "over-play" its quality and location. As such I consider that the viability of a 375 dwelling site must be open to question.

1.2.34 Consequently I find no reason to suggest that the conclusions of the EIP Panel are unreasonable. Moreover there can be no doubt that the level of facilities that could be provided by a development of the order of 1000 dwellings would provide a more sustainable development: providing more employment opportunities; providing more social, community and recreational provision, including shops and school provision; ensuring the provision of facilities for all types of transport; and ensuring the provision of an appropriate amount of affordable housing.

Employment

1.2.35 There is little between the parties on this issue. The area proposed for B1 development in both the Whittingham Hospital Development Brief and under Policy W1 of the DP is some 3.4ha, whilst the proposal by the NHS Executive is for some 4.8ha of land to be set aside for such use. Taking into account the refurbishment of St Luke's there is a difference between the parties of some 1.9ha.

1.2.36 The hospital site is located approximately 8km from the M55 junction and the implementation of the Broughton Bypass will greatly improve access to the motorway system and is likely to increase its desirability as an office campus location. Notwithstanding that, at first sight, Preston appears to have a significant supply of employment land, its ability to provide dedicated semi-rural B1 Business Park land is restricted principally to Broughton. Whilst Broughton is capable of providing strategic development, Whittingham provides a unique opportunity to provide an office park environment, within a niche market, which will service a growth market based on the motorway improvements along the M6 and M65.

1.2.37 However, for the proposals at Whittingham Hospital and the Strategic growth Location as a whole to work in their entirety, it is important that sufficient development is provided to sustain all aspects of the development in order that they will integrate effectively. A higher level of housing units would clearly add to the viability of the entire scheme as will a higher density of housing than proposed by the Council. The viability of such a development at such a location relies not only on the provision of adequate public transport facilities but on the provision of local amenities. As such, the higher level of housing must benefit the provision of such services and the viability of the whole scheme. The actual amount of land reserved for employment uses should however be related to the actual extent of housing to be planned for in the strategic growth location as a whole.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 26

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.2.38 However, whilst the calculation of employment land provision cannot be carried out with certainty, the LCC have put forward calculations made on two different bases which I consider merit consideration. Firstly, by extrapolation, the figure used in the DP of 3.4ha for 375 dwellings is shown to produce a 9ha total for 1000 dwellings. This would suggest that about 4.5ha should be made available in the plan period to 1986. Secondly, taking into account that the LSP requires provision of 180ha in the district within the plan period and, that, within this period, Goosnargh/Whittingham would be likely to accommodate about 7% of the districts new dwelling requirement, about 12ha would be required. Whilst such calculations illustrate a requirement within a range of between 4.5 and 12ha within the plan period, I consider the higher figure to be too high a requirement for such a niche market to produce within the plan period. The LCC also recognises however, and I agree, that the district figure of 180ha includes some considerations which are not applicable at Goosnargh/Whittingham, including the need to reduce current unemployment in urban Preston and to allow for the redevelopment of existing industrial areas at lower densities. Having regard to the above, this suggests to me that a lower figure within the range, i.e about 4.5-6ha, is likely to be more appropriate for implementation within the plan period and a total of 12ha for the longer term.

CONCLUSIONS - POLICY RNEW

1.2.39 I conclude therefore that Policy RNEW, and this policy as was suggested to be changed by the Council at the inquiry, is not in conformity with the LSP. The Council have suggested that a proposed acknowledgement within the reasoned justification to the location being suitable for long term growth is adequate comfort to be able to plan for the future. This does not overcome the deficiency in the policy. In my view the local plan should make provision for the total development of the Goosnargh/Whittingham area even though development will extend beyond the plan period. This situation was clearly recognised by the EIP panel and covered in the EM to the LSP. The planning of the area should be considered comprehensively and long term if the necessary certainty is to be given, thereby enabling the full infrastructure to be provided viably and with confidence. Moreover, I consider such an approach to be a requirement to be achieved under the provisions of this local plan. Its deferment to a later Review would seriously undermine the achievement of the strategic development strategy of the approved LSP.

1.2.40 Having regard to the above, I consider that a separate policy be included within the local plan making explicit that the Goosnargh\Whittingham area is a Strategic Location for Growth, both catering for growth in the longer term and for the development of a specific amount of housing and employment land within the plan period. The specific amount of housing growth to be accommodated within the area, and the definition of the area, are matters I deal with later as part of my considerations of the site specific objections. I also consider that the supporting text should be amended to make clear that longer term growth of the order of 1000 dwellings is to be accommodated at this location.

LSP POLICY 7 - DEVELOPMENT AT OTHER SETTLEMENTS

Development At Broughton

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 27

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.2.41 Whilst provisionally withdrawing its objection to Policy R8 of the DP, due to the fact PIC/01/RNEW removed the settlement of Broughton from Policy R8, the LCC formally expressed objection to the proposed new policy on the ground that it does not implement at the local level the settlement LSP designation for Broughton. LSP Policy 7 indicates that at Broughton: "Consolidation and expansion appropriate to its size and form will be provided for". Paragraph 5.7.1 of the EM to the LSP sets out various criteria which each settlement mentioned in the policy is said to meet one or more of. The Council accept that "Broughton probably meets them all". Paragraph 5.7.2 of the EM indicates that "The appropriate pattern of development for each settlement will be identified through the preparation of local plans.". 1.2.42 The Council simply re-iterates the case that "Put simply there is no need at the present time to make allocations and to do so would lead to an over-provision and significantly erode the prospects for regeneration in the urban area.". It is considered that the PIC/01/RNEW recognises the longer term potential at Broughton but gives a clear indication that at local plan review it will be looked at again within the context of the overall needs of the Borough which may or may not have changed over time.

1.2.43 Having regard to my conclusions above, concerning objections to Policy H2, that the Council have underestimated the housing requirements for the Borough, I consider that the consequences of such a conclusion are that the plan must be deficient and out of conformity with the policy of the LSP. The Council as in the case of Goosnargh/Whittingham have carried out no detailed environmental appraisal of the settlement of Broughton and put forward no proposals for development within the plan period, even though the criteria for a LSP Policy 7 settlement are accepted as being applicable to Broughton. It is accepted therefore that a settlement such as Broughton: is large enough to generate its own internal needs for new housing, jobs and community services and likely to face development pressures in the future (Criteria 5.7.1b & c LSP Policy 7); lies within a strategic transport corridor and where it can play an important role in the diversification of local economies by providing for business and other uses (Criteria 5.7.1 a & d LSP Policy 7).

1.2.44 Given the above, and my conclusions with regard to the Council's inappropriate use of a hierarchical approach, I consider the Council's interpretation of LSP policy for Broughton to be out of conformity with the LSP. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the Panel's general comment made concerning the categorisation of smaller settlements that: ".. This seems essentially a Local Plan matter, and in our Report we recommend that at the next Review the LCC move to a criteria based system of categorisation, leaving the application of the criteria to the District Councils in the context of Local Plans.". Notwithstanding this view, the Panel still recommended that Broughton be included under LSP Policy 7 and given the Council's acceptance of the applicability of all the criteria set out under Policy 7, there is nothing to suggest that such a categorisation should be any different even if left to the Council to apply the criteria.

1.2.45 This is also confirmed by the fact the Council assert that Policy 7 is an indication of where development might take place in the "longer term" and that options will be more appropriately considered as part of a future review of the Local Plan. For the reasons I have set out above I do not consider such an approach to conform with LSP policy. All the policies contained in the LSP are operational throughout the period up to 2006 and it is not for the Local Plan to effectively

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 28

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

defer the implementation of current adopted LSP policy until the next review of the Local Plan. The question remains, however, as to whether such delay can be avoided, given the manner of the Council's approach to development at Broughton. In concluding on this matter it is first necessary for me to consider the implications of both: the site specific objections made to the non allocation of land at Broughton; and the Council's approach towards the Broughton Bypass. I deal with these matters later in my report.

1.2.46 Policy 12 (Mixed Development) of the LSP states that on sites at a Policy 7 settlement: "development ... will be acceptable providing that it achieves a broad mix of land uses in the settlement as a whole.". The Council, however, points out that Broughton and Grimsargh, which I consider below, are both within 1km of the Borough's largest allocations for new business and industry at Broughton Business Park/North Preston and East Preston/Redscar. These sites will be well served by public transport and will provide more than adequate opportunities for local employment in the two settlements. Consequently it only remains for the local plan to consider the appropriate allocations of housing and other uses within the settlement. Although the LCC consider that the approach taken by the Council prevents the attainment of a more balanced community, I am satisfied in this instance that the provision of a limited amount of housing would be consistent with LSP policies 7, 8 & 12 concerning Broughton and Grimsargh.

CONCLUSIONS - BROUGHTON

1.2.47 I conclude the plan should be amended to include a specific policy for the consolidation and expansion of Broughton within the plan period. Such site specific provision for Broughton is however intimately bound together with considerations concerning the Broughton Bypass. These are considered below under the heading of Site Specific Matters. LSP POLICY 8 - DEVELOPMENT AT GRIMSARGH

1.2.48 Whilst provisionally withdrawing its objection to Policy R8 of the DP, due to the fact PIC/01/RNEW removed the settlement of Grimsargh from Policy R8, the LCC formally expressed objection to the proposed new policy on the ground that it does not implement at the local level the settlement LSP designation for Grimsargh. LSP Policy 8 provides, at Grimsargh, for: "development within, or by way of rounding off, the built up area..". The term "rounding off" was not included in DP Policy R8 due to the fact that the Council considered infilling within a defined village boundary was the scale of development appropriate for Grimsargh. It was however considered appropriate for the local plan to closely match the wording of the LSP because it was felt that, together, they provide the Development Plan Statement. That statement could then, in the Council's view, be more finely interpreted in the local plan by Preston circumstances and context. I am in agreement with the Council on this matter but consider, whilst the Council regarded the LSP to have offered the choice of development within or by way of rounding off, that its initial approach expressed in Policy R8 is out of conformity with the LSP.

1.2.49 Whilst PIC/01/RNEW proposes a change to the settlement categorisation of Grimsargh, which is in effect in accord with the LSP, the reasoned justification to the proposed change states that it would be impractical to allocate specific sites. LCC maintain that this approach, in not identifying appropriate sites for development on the Proposals Map, does not implement at the

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 29

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

local level the settlement designation for Grimsargh as shown in the LSP. Moreover, it is pointed out that LSP Policy 8 is concerned with catering for appropriate development, not only housing development. Policy 12 (Mixed Development) of the LSP states that on sites at a Policy 8 settlement: "development ... will be acceptable providing that it achieves a broad mix of land uses in the settlement as a whole.".

1.2.50 I have concluded above that, due to the proximity of Grimsargh to Redscar employment area, that the provision of and allocation of a limited amount of land for housing at this settlement would remain consistent with LSP policies 8 & 12. However the Council's approach in not proposing any allocation for housing, relies on the provisions of Policy RNEW to determine the extent of development at Grimsargh. Whilst the provisions of Policy RNEW, as far as it appertains to Grimsargh, are consistent with LSP policy I consider that the application of LSP Policy 8 leaves considerable uncertainty in its interpretation. This view is reinforced by the substantial numbers and different types of objections that have been made to its application at Grimsargh.

1.2.51 Three objectors Haighton Green Estates, Redrow Homes (Lancashire) Ltd and Mr W J Briggs are quoting the policy in support of their view that larger scale development is consistent with its wording. Several other objectors, including Grimsargh Parish Council, Haighton Parish Council and Action Committee, Mr D J Hindle and Mr and Mrs Woollam, are all of the view that the policy will allow excessive development contrary to the provisions of the LSP. It is also the view of some objectors that had the Council taken a realistic attitude towards the allocation of housing land consistent with the provisions of the LSP then such uncertainty could have been avoided, potentially reducing the likely number of speculative and misconceived planning applications and appeals.

1.2.52 Paragraph 5.8.2 of the EM to the LSP indicates that: "Some development needs to be provided for in the future in these settlements because of their size and location. Development within or by way of rounding off, is considered the most appropriate form. Nearly all of the settlements are located within strategic transport corridors and have, or have the potential for, good public transport services. Some development is appropriate but significant expansion is considered unacceptable in terms of the plan's general strategy. ..". Whilst the Council recognises that Grimsargh is located in close proximity to the Red Scar Industrial Estate and close to the major employment centre of Preston it has failed to recognise sufficiently the implications of continuing pressures for new development in the area. Although the Council points to the amount of development which has taken place in the village, no other reason, other than over-allocation within the plan as a whole, is promoted as to why further development should be restricted. Such a reason, which is also put forward in the objection made by Miss E Worsey (Peter Higham & Co), is not in itself good reason to restrict development where pressure exists for further development.

1.2.53 Such pressures can in my view only be effectively controlled by appropriate allocations within the plan. To leave such a matter to be controlled through the operation of the development control system undervalues the effectiveness of having an up-to-date local plan with appropriate land allocations. As in the case of the settlements at Goosnargh/Whittingham and Broughton, the Council has not carried out any environmental appraisal of the settlement of Grimsargh. This

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 30

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

being the case the Council rely on the argument of over-allocation which I have dealt with above. In addition the Council consider that, given the form of the settlement and the scale of recent "infilling and rounding off" development, there are no immediately obvious sites which could be allocated within the parameters of the LSP definitions of "infilling and rounding off". Clearly the Council consider that effective control of future development proposals which come forward can be judged on their merits in the context of appropriate local plan policies. I am not convinced that this offers the Council sufficient control over the implementation of its policies and certainly does not provide the certainty clearly desired by a number of objectors. LSP Policy 8 offered the Council the chance to define "rounding off" in the context of the local plan policies and provide the required certainty.

1.2.54 "Rounding Off" is defined within the Glossary to the LSP as being: "Development which is essentially part of, rather than an extension to, the existing built up area. It represents a form of urban development in which a substantial proportion (about two thirds) of the perimeter is already built up with consolidated development.". Such a definition pays little regard to the scale of the development envisaged or to any special site specific circumstances that might be applicable to the form and character of the settlement. Such matters could however have clearly been considered as a part of an appropriate environmental appraisal. The fact that it has not undertaken such an approach has, in my view, led to the site specific objections made. Having regard to the above, the suggestion made by an objector that development should be restricted to development within the settlement boundary is clearly inconsistent with LSP policy.

1.2.55 The Council draw my attention to the approach taken to "rounding off" by the Inspector to the Ribble Valley District-wide Local Plan where he considered that: "the character of the area and the adequacy of the overall housing land supply" justifies the limiting of "rounding off" development on open land to sites of 1ha or less.". However, I have concluded previously that the land supply situation in Preston Borough has been underestimated by the Council and no environmental appraisal has been carried out of Grimsargh. As such I consider a very different situation exists in Preston to that considered by the Inspector at Ribble Valley. Therefore, in the absence of an environmental study, I am of the view that a similar approach to that adopted by the Inspector at Ribble Valley cannot be justified at Grimsargh, even though the LSP makes clear that significant expansion is considered unacceptable. Consequently, whilst I consider that at Grimsargh "rounding off" should not be interpreted as being justification for substantial and significant expansions, larger developments than 1ha may well be justified. Such developments can however, in my view, only reasonably be justified in the context of the particular characteristics of any site put forward.

1.2.56 Having regard to the above, whilst I am satisfied, with regard to Grimsargh, that Policy RNEW is in conformity with the LSP, I consider the Council's approach towards its application within the local plan does not provide sufficient guidance and certainty either for developers or the local community. Para.3.7 of PPG12 states: "The local plan sets out detailed policies and specific proposals for development and the use of land, ... Particularly in areas of development pressure, it is not sufficient for local planning authorities to seek to rely only on national and regional guidance and the provisions of the structure plan. ..". In my view the DP as proposed to be amended by the Council does little more than repeat the provisions of LSP Policy 8.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 31

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.2.57 It is suggested by Redrow Homes Ltd that the strategic context implicit in LSP Policy is important in the assessment of the scale of development. In support of this view, my attention is drawn to the fact the scale of housing suggested on its objection site is generally well below that of other LSP Policy 8 settlements. Whilst I accept that this is clearly a material factor, I am also mindful that the LSP makes it quite clear, with regard to Grimsargh, that significant expansion here would be unacceptable. Moreover, in terms of the range of settlement sizes, Grimsargh is about the smallest structure plan Policy 8 settlement. As such I do not consider it realistic to suggest a generalised level of development that may be suitable for Policy 8 settlements on the basis of an assessment of some 18 Policy 8 settlements having a wide range of sizes.

1.2.58 The Council consider that as some 176 dwelling approvals have been given at Grimsargh, representing a 27% increase in the size of the village, that this itself satisfies the terms of LSP Policy 8. In my view however this type of analysis suffers from a similar type of generalisation as put forward by the objectors and does not give any indication as to whether the effect of such an increase is significant in the context of the village services and environmental character. Whilst the Council argue that the impact of this growth on local schools and facilities has not had time to take effect, I find it surprising that such matters had not been taken into account at the time the Council allowed such development and when the planning policies were of a more restrictive nature than now exists under LSP Policy 8.

1.2.59 I do not accept therefore that a settlement, which is currently approaching some 836 dwellings in size and located so close to a major centre of employment, should be the subject of such a restrictive development policy given that any existing commitments are likely to be exhausted in the very near future. Consequently, as Grimsargh is not located within the Green Belt, nor within the best and most versatile agricultural land, some housing development is appropriate and should be allocated within the plan. To my mind the fact that almost 176 dwellings have already been completed so far within the plan period, the allocation of sites to accommodate an additional 150-200 dwellings would not, in the absence of any environmental capacity study, represent overly significant expansion and would provide for a similar rate of growth to that which has occurred in the past 5 or 6 years of the plan period when subject to greater policy restraint.

1.2.60 The fact remains that the Council has carried out no detailed assessment of the environmental capacity of Grimsargh to accommodate additional development. This is surprising given its apparent support for the EIP Panel's view concerning the type of criteria that should be employed in the determination of growth which should be accommodated. Although the Council point to the existing situation at the local school, no representations or evidence is before me from the Local Education Authority and no evidence concerning the effect of such development on community services is adduced by the Council. Consequently in my view each objection to the non-allocation of a particular site has to be treated on its own merits in accord with LSP Policy 8 and my conclusions above with regard to "rounding off".

CONCLUSIONS - GRIMSARGH

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 32

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.2.61 I conclude that the plan should be modified to include a policy specifically identifying development at Grimsargh and that specific allocation should be made in the plan of sites sufficient to accommodate up to 200 dwellings.

RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICIES R8 AND RNEW

I recommend that the plan be modified such that:

(REC.1.3) Policy R8 be deleted;

(REC.1.4) PIC/01/RNEW not be accepted;

(REC.1.5) a new policy and section be included in the plan under a revised Policy RNEW(1) to reflect the importance of the Goosnargh/Whittingham Strategic Growth Location and making explicit the amount of growth to be catered for in the plan period, (See REC.1.16);

(REC.1,6) the Proposals Map be amended to include the area designated as The Goosnargh/Whittingham Strategic Growth Location;

(REC.1.7) the supporting text be amended to make clear that longer term growth up to a total of about 1000 new dwellings is to be accommodated at this location in accordance with a development brief to be prepared;

(REC.1.8) a new policy and section be included in the plan under a revised Policy RNEW(2) dealing specifically with development at Broughton and indicating the extent of consolidation and expansion. (See REC.1.23);

(REC.1.9) a new policy and section be included in the plan under a revised Policy RNEW(3) dealing specifically with development at Grimsargh. (See REC.1.24)

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 33

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.3 SITE SPECIFIC MATTERS - RELATED TO POLICIES H2, R8 AND RNEW

Explanatory Note: I now consider the manner in which the policies are reflected in the local plan. The site specific objections made are considered in the following manner: firstly in relation to sites in and adjacent to the Preston Urban Area, secondly in relation to the Goosnargh/Whittingham area, thirdly, in relation to the site specific matters in Broughton (including Broughton Bypass - Policies T4 and T5) and finally for those within Grimsargh. My recommendations are made at the end of each group of sites related to each of these sections. A number of other objections are made to other policies of the plan in relation to these sites and, for the sake of completeness, I have dealt with these in the appropriate section. My considerations and conclusions on these site specific matters have to be read together with my conclusions with regard to the general matters involved with Policies H2, R8 and RNEW.

*************************

PRESTON URBAN AREA

1.3.1 HOUSING ALLOCATIONS: GENERAL

Explanatory Note: Preston Friends of the Earth, as part of the general objection to the housing allocations, consider that the Sandybrook Site would affect local greenspace. This site is proposed for deletion under PIC/01/H2 and the site is proposed to be re-allocated as greenspace under Policy G2. As there are specific and detailed issues involved with other objections to this site, I deal with this part of the objection in Section 1.3.2 below.

Objection : O/153/21/H2 PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

PBC Response no. :PBC/67

ISSUE:

1.3.1.1 Whether preference should be given to the allocation of more central sites for housing and whether the site at Thornpark Drive would unacceptably affect local greenspace.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Allocation of Central Sites

1.3.1.2 Para.9/30 of the supporting text to Policy H2 indicates that the Council has looked, as a priority, for urban development sites. Paragraph 9.31 indicates that Preston town is relatively intensively developed and that there is little open land within the existing urban area, other than

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 34

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

parkland and other greenspace, which has considerable amenity value. My own observations throughout my site visits confirm this view and I accept the view of the Council that the majority of the Policy H3 sites are only likely to be suitable for housing in the longer term. Consequently I consider there is little opportunity to allocate further central sites for housing.

Thornpark Drive

1.3.1.3 The effect of the Thornpark Drive site on local greenspace is likely to be minimal due to the fact that the area to the south will be retained as open space. Moreover I accept that the more important trees within the site which give it its present character could be retained through sensitive design and landscaping of any development proposed. In reaching this conclusion however, I am of the view that the density of any development of the site may be reduced from that currently proposed. This gives added weight to my conclusions concerning Policy H1.

Summary

1.3.1.4 Having regard to the above I consider that no modification be made to the plan in response to these objections.

*************************

1.3.2 SITE 18 - SANDYBROOK (POLICY H2)

Explanatory Note: This site is proposed for deletion under PIC/01/H2 and the site re-allocated as greenspace under Policy G2. Objections are made both to the allocation of the site and to its deletion under the PIC. My considerations and conclusions on this site have to be considered against my conclusions with regard to the provision made for new housing in the plan, Section 1.1 of this report.

Objections : O/207/2/H2r MR M R JAMES O/207/1/H2r MR M R JAMES O/95/1/H2r MR J NORTH O/153/21/H2 PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH O/139/5/G9 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS

OPC/133/8/H2 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS

PBC Response no.: PBC/4 & 67

ISSUES:

Deposit Plan

1.3.2.1 Whether Policy H2 should be amended, as per PIC/01/H2, to exclude the allocation within the DP for residential and ancillary purposes of land at Sandybrook having regard to:

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 35

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

the planning history of the site; the effect on provision of local amenity greenspace in the locality; the location of the site adjacent to the motorway and slip roads.

PIC

1.3.2.2 Whether the objection site is suitable to accommodate housing within the plan period, having regard to its previous allocation for housing within the DP.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Planning History

1.3.2.3 The objection site was included as housing site in the DP with the agreement of CNT after the site at Longsands 11, previously included in the plan as a commitment, was found to be undevelopable through ground contamination. The change was part of a package of changes justified by the fact that the overall balance of open space to development in the Longsands Lane Section 7(1) area would remain the same. Although CNT had agreed such a package when the changes were incorporated into the DP, it objected to the greenspace allocation on part (1.1ha) of the Longsands site. PIC/01/G9 was put forward to show this area as a housing commitment and the site, with a capacity of 30 dwellings, was included with other commitments in the Council's housing supply figures.

1.3.2.4 PIC/01/H2 and PIC/02/H2 then proposed the allocation, as a site for new housing, of land at north Longsands (site 22) which had been shown in error as a commitment in the DP. CNT have submitted a supporting representation concerning this change. In order to restore the balance of open space and development upset by these changes, and to take account of the objections made by local residents, the Council decided to propose the deletion of the Sandybrook site through PIC/01/H2. In proposing this change the Council accepted that a net loss of some 25 dwellings would be caused to the housing supply. Moreover, with regard to objections to the DP made by Mr & Mrs James, the Council also accepted that assurances had been given to local residents that, amongst other things, the land between the proposed motorway slip roads would be used as greenspace for public amenity. Such assurances had clearly been ignored by the proposed allocation of the site for housing and Mr James asked that the policy be reversed.

1.3.2.5 It seems to me that the Council, faced with a situation whereby it had considered the disturbed balance of amenity space and housing provision had been rectified, and the fact that it had given assurances to local residents about greenspace provision, acted pragmatically and reasonably in reviewing the situation and proposing the change to the plan. Nevertheless given the objection made by CNT it is still incumbent on me to consider the competing merits of the allocation of the site for housing or amenity greenspace.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 36

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

The Provision of Amenity Greenspace

1.3.2.6 CNT point to pages 25 and 26 of CD/PBC/24 in which the Council, in response to the package of measures put forward by CNT, accepted that: "CNT's suggested changes are a sensible rationalisation of the proposals for the Longsands Lane area, with the overall balance of development and open spaces remaining the same. ...". Given that the Council subsequently accepted the addition of 1.1ha of housing land at Longsands it appears to me that the achievement of balance requires some 1.1ha of land to be allocated for greenspace purposes.

1.3.2.7 CNT, in supplementary proposals put to the inquiry, suggest that, in any case, a realistic scheme of development for the objection site would result in a reduced housing allocation amounting to 1.8ha for housing purposes out of the total area of 3.2ha resulting in approximately 50 dwellings. Such a reduced allocation would be located to the west of the site south of the slip road, due to limitations placed upon any design by the maximum extent of development which could be served from a single cul-de-sac. As a result, the remaining area to the east, between the proposed residential land and the motorway, would remain undeveloped and possibly retained as open space. Given this situation I am satisfied that the balance of greenspace and housing allocations in this area would be maintained and facilitate the retention of an open break between the existing and proposed housing and the motorway.

The Suitability of the Site to Accommodate Housing

1.3.2.8 The objection site was clearly considered by the Council to be an appropriate housing site prior to its consideration of the PIC. Notwithstanding this fact, I share the concern of Council officers about the suitability of this site to accommodate housing because of its proximity to the slip road and the motorway itself. In my view given the narrow nature of the western part of the site located between the mounded landscaping of the slip road and the existing housing to the south, I consider that housing on this site to a density of 17.5 dwellings per ha would be likely to appear cramped. It would produce a residential environment of an inferior character to that which exists to the south of the site and suffer from some noise disturbance from the adjacent roads. In this respect I have had regard to the objection made by Mr North, concerning the existing density of development in Longsands. Whilst I consider that sufficient open space would be provided within the locality I am of the view that the objection site does contribute to the character of the locality by maintaining an open area between the existing development and the mounding and screen planting to the slip road to the motorway.

1.3.2.9 Although I have, within Section 1.1, determined that additional housing allocations should be made within the plan I conclude, even having regard to my conclusions with regard to Policy H2, that the objection site should not be allocated for housing within the local plan. In reaching this conclusion I have also taken into account that the site does not represent the best and most versatile agricultural land and that the site is not large enough to be a viable agricultural unit.

Summary

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 37

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.3.2.10 Having regard to the above, I do not consider that the objection site is suitable for allocation as housing under Policy H2 and, as a consequence, PIC/01/H2 should be confirmed.

*************************

1.3.3 LAND NORTH OF D'URTON LANE (POLICY H2)

Explanatory Note: My considerations and conclusions on this site have to be considered against my conclusions with regard to the provision made for new housing in the plan, Section 1.1 of this report. The Council proposes, under PIC/04/R2, to re-allocate this site as open countryside under Policy R2.

Objections: O/133/1/H2 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS O/133/3/G2 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS

OPC/133/7/R2 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS

PBC Response no. :PBC/4

ISSUES:

1.3.3.1 Whether Policy H2 should be amended to include a housing land allocation for land north of D'Urton Lane and, if not, whether it should be re-allocated from Amenity Greenspace under Policy G2 to open countryside under Policy R2.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.3.3.2 The Council presented no evidence to counter the objector's view concerning the appropriateness of the site for residential and associated development. The Council do not, due to the proximity of complementary employment and shopping facilities, dispute that this site could be developed in ways which will not be over-dependent on the use of private cars. The availability of facilities for walking and cycling and the ability of the areas to be served by public transport is recognised. Traffic generated by the housing areas is not expected to have any significant impact on the highway network and the site can be accessed satisfactorily. Consequently the objection site is clearly considered by the objector as being appropriate to accommodate residential and associated development.

1.3.3.3 The Council have mainly relied on its view that: "...irrespective of whether or not it is appropriate for residential development, the allocation of this site for new housing is not necessary and that sufficient sites are allocated in the Preston Local Plan to meet the housing requirement set out in the LSP.". Given my conclusions set out in Section 1.1 I do not consider this to be the case and, notwithstanding the Council's view on this matter, I have concluded that further allocations of land for residential and ancillary development should be made at the

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 38

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

settlements of Whittingham/Goosnargh, Broughton and Grimsargh, in order to ensure conformity with LSP policy and to enable a greater choice of housing land. As a result I consider that priority should be given to residential land allocations at these settlements before consideration be given to the allocation of the objection site for such purposes.

1.3.3.4 Nevertheless I have also taken into account the importance that the Council attach to the present openness of the site and the fact that it is currently includes an existing working farm. Whilst urban influences, such as the motorways to the north and the planned commercial and industrial belt to the south, impinge on this area, it still remains a significant area of open agricultural land providing an important visual break from the urban development which has taken place between Eastway and the M6 to the south-east of the site. The view of the Inspector at a previous inquiry into the PRALP, and with which both I and the objectors agree, represents a true reflection of the likely future character of the site. The then Inspector stated that: "the area to the north of D'Urton Lane will become a pocket of open land with residences lying between the commercial/industrial belt to the south and the major junction of the M6 and M55 to the north.".

1.3.3.5 This does not indicate to me that the site represents an appropriate location for housing even though I accept that the adjacent motorways and the likely intensification of adjacent commercial/industrial land uses will lead to greater urbanisation of the area. Indeed the proximity of the site to the adjacent motorways and its future isolation from the main residential areas to the other side of Eastway by the planned commercial/industrial area is a factor which detracts from its consideration for housing. Such isolation is better suited to its existing agricultural use, in that, at the same time as providing some welcome visual relief from built development in this area, the openness itself is likely to be well protected from the types of trespass normally associated with urban fringe agricultural sites.

1.3.3.6 To my mind the retention of the current designation of the site as Countryside area under Policy ENV4 of the PRALP, or its designation under Policy R2 of the DP, is more appropriate than a designation of Amenity Greenspace under Policy G2. Such a designation would better ensure its continued use for agriculture and consistency in the designation of urban fringe sites. Inclusion in the plan under Policy G2 is not appropriate in that the provisions of this policy would preclude legitimate agricultural development. As such I am satisfied that the allocation of the site as Countryside under policy R2 as proposed by the Council under PIC/04/R2 constitutes the most appropriate land use allocation for this area.

*************************

1.3.4 LAND SOUTH OF EASTWAY, SHAROE GREEN (POLICY H2)

Objections : O/133/5/H2 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 39

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

O/133/6/G2 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS

PBC Response no.: PBC/4

ISSUES:

1.3.4.1 Whether Policy H2 should be amended to include a housing land allocation for land south of Eastway, Sharoe Green.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.3.4.2 The Council presented no evidence to counter the objector's view concerning the appropriateness of the site for residential and associated development. It is not disputed that this site could be developed in ways which will not be over-dependent on the use of private cars due to: its proximity to complementary employment and shopping facilities; the availability of facilities for walking and cycling; and the ability of the areas to be served by public transport. It is also accepted that the traffic generated by the housing areas would not have any significant impact on the highway network and that the site could be accessed satisfactorily. Consequently the objection site is clearly appropriate to accommodate residential and associated development.

1.3.4.3 However the Council point to the fact that the site forms an open buffer zone and an important visual break between high density residential development to the south, the distributor road (Eastway) and the proposed Broughton Business Park to the north, and affords some protection from the noise of the distributor road. Support was given to the inclusion of this type of site in the Inspectors report on the Fulwood and Western Suburbs Plan. The Inspector concluded, in relation to a site similarly related to a distributor road, that: "..the site constitutes pleasant and welcome relief from the general tendency for the development plan to extend up to the outer distributor road. I accept that the objection site(s) are not required to meet a deficiency of Public Open Space but the openness of the site(s) should be maintained for the contribution they make to the townscape.".

1.3.4.4 I concur with this view and consider, unless there are overriding reasons requiring the allocation of the site for housing within the plan period, and given the openness that the site provides in what is already a fairly densely built up area, that its current allocation as Amenity Greenspace under Policy G2 provides the appropriate allocation within the lifetime of the plan.

1.3.4.5 Given my conclusions set out in Section 1.1 I do not consider there to be any overriding reason that would justify its allocation within the plan period. I have concluded that further allocations of land for residential and ancillary development should be made at the settlements of Whittingham/Goosnargh, Broughton and Grimsargh in order to ensure conformity with LSP policy and to enable a greater choice of housing land. As a result I consider that priority should be given to residential land allocations at these settlements before consideration be given to the allocation of the objection site for housing.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 40

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

*************************

1.3.5 LAND NORTH OF LIGHTFOOT LANE AND HOYLE'S LANE

Explanatory Note: Within the area bounded by the M55, the rugby club, Lightfoot Lane, Hoyle's Lane and Sandy Lane a number of objections have been made to the non-allocation of land for housing on three sites. Further objection is made by Mrs B Wignall to the inclusion of land north of Lightfoot Lane in open countryside and this is specifically dealt with in Section 1.3.6. However as the majority of the objections involve broadly similar issues I have dealt with them together. My conclusions and recommendations on these objections have to be read in association with my conclusions and recommendations concerning housing land supply under Policy H2 (Section 1.1). Matters concerning objections to Policies H9 and G3 are dealt with under these headings at Sections 7.9 and 3.3.

Objections : O/87/2/H2 MESSRS AIREY MAUDSLEY AND MURPHY 90 67 73 58 O/87/1/R2 MESSRS AIREY MAUDSLEY AND MURPHY O/87/3/H9 MESSRS AIREY MAUDSLEY AND MURPHY O/87/4/G3 MESSRS AIREY MAUDSLEY AND MURPHY O/140/1/H2 MESSRS SWIFT AND SPENCER 67 O/94/1/H2 WIMPEY HOMES NORTH WEST 67 O/173/2/H2 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD 3a O/173/1/R2 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD 3c O/120/1/G2 MRS B WIGNALL

OPC/120/3/G2 MRS B WIGNALL

PBC Response nos. : PBC/3a, 3c, 57, 58, 67 & 90

ISSUES:

1.3.5.1 Whether land should be allocated, under Policy H2, for housing within the area located to the north of the urban area of Preston north of Lightfoot Lane and Hoyle's Lane having regard to:

strategic transport corridors; transport links; landscape and other site specific matters; the internal consistency of the plan.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Strategic Transport Corridors

1.3.5.2 Although the area lies within a strategic transport corridor defined within the LSP, this does not, in itself, justify its allocation for housing within the plan. The Council point to the fact that the whole of the western edge of Preston, from the M55 to the River Ribble, is situated in a

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 41

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

transport corridor. As such the Council consider that the locational advantages of this area would have to be compared with those of competitor sites on the western edge of Preston in any situation where a shortfall in housing land provision was confirmed.

1.3.5.3 Although I consider that such a comparative exercise would be desirable, it is clear that the Council, in relying on its estimate of housing land requirements, considers that it has not given sufficient consideration to this matter to enable a conclusion to be drawn. However there is also no evidence before me to indicate that this western area is a viable option. In this respect an objector points to the fact that any additional sites allocated in the western area would need to follow the completion of existing allocated sites at Cottam and that the area is, in any case, constrained by overhead electricity lines. Given my conclusions on housing land supply I have some sympathy with the objectors view that the western area appears not to represent a viable option. Moreover land on the edge of Preston is severely constrained to the south of the Ribble by approved Green Belt. As such I consider the northern area has to be treated as a possible area for development on its own merits.

Transport Links

1.3.5.4 The objectors argue that the area is related closely to existing public transport infrastructure, being well located to the proposed Lightfoot Lane station on the north-south rail route and to a park and ride facility. Whilst such a station facility is proposed under LSP Policy 35, this proposal was deleted from the DP by the Council after public consultation because of its serious doubts about the feasibility of this station. My considerations and conclusions on the objections to the exclusion of this proposal are set out at Section 5.5 where I have recommended that such a proposal should be included within the plan. This being accepted, public transport facilities for the area to the north of Preston would benefit from the addition of access to rail facilities. Good access by bus to the town centre and to the closely related employment areas already exists. Consequently I consider that the area has the potential to be very well served by public transport.

Landscape and Other Site Specific Matters

1.3.5.5 The Council are of the view that, whilst the area may not be of great landscape value, it is nevertheless an open greenfield site in agricultural use which justifies its inclusion within open countryside. In this respect the Council point to Government advice in Para.2.14 of PPG7 indicates that: "in the absence of any overriding need for its development, open countryside should be protected for its own sake.". Whilst, if no overriding need is found, this is clearly the case, I have concluded above that the Council's housing supply requirements are considerably underestimated. There is an overriding need generally that additional land be allocated within the plan. Should all urban sites, and other structure plan requirements, not accommodate such development, then greenfield sites at the edge of Preston may need to be considered for allocation.

1.3.5.6 The area involved is low Grade 3 agricultural land and is not the subject of any specific ecological designations. It is as a whole well defined, lying between the M55 motorway and the urban edge of Preston. It could, with proper attention to noise attenuation and landscaping along

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 42

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

the motorway provide a logical and sustainable extension to Preston Urban Area if more suitable sites are not found to satisfy the Structure Plan requirement. The Internal Consistency of the Plan

1.3.5.7 I accept that, should an overriding need be confirmed, the area should be taken out of open countryside (Policy R2) and included within the rest of the urban area to the south with appropriate designations under Policy H2. However, in the absence of the confirmation of an overriding need for the allocation of this area specifically, the Council aim to achieve a consistency in the manner in which the urban area is defined along the northern edge of urban Preston. PIC/03/R2 and PIC/04/R2 define similar areas between the urban area of Preston and the M55/M6 motorways as open countryside. The area to the east of the railway is primarily agricultural in character and as such its proposed re-designation from amenity greenspace to open countryside is appropriate and consistent with other designations north of Tom Benson Way/Lightfoot Lane. Such an approach is both consistent with and appropriate for the area subject of the above objections in the absence of the definition of a specific overriding need for its allocation for development.

Summary

1.3.5.8 I have concluded above that there are no overriding environmental or locational factors that would exclude the consideration of this area for the allocation of housing. This however is completely dependent on the determination of an overriding need for the allocation of this area in particular having regard to the locational requirements of the LSP. Consequently, unless there are overriding reasons requiring the allocation of the area for development within the plan period, and given the openness that the area provides at the urban edge of Preston, I consider that its allocation as Open Countryside, under Policy R2, provides the appropriate allocation within the lifetime of the plan.

1.3.5.9 Moreover, even should an overriding need for housing be defined, I consider that, given its considerable size and ability to accommodate a large number of dwellings, the allocation of specific housing sites within this area should only be approached through the prior consideration of a planning brief for the whole area.

1.3.5.10 However, I have concluded that further allocations of land for residential and ancillary development should be made at the settlements of Whittingham/Goosnargh, Broughton and Grimsargh, in order to ensure conformity with LSP policy and to enable a greater choice of housing land. As a result I consider that priority should be given to additional land allocations at these settlements before consideration be given to the allocation of this area for development.

*************************

1.3.6 LAND NORTH OF LIGHTWOOD LANE - EAST OF RAILWAY

Explanatory Note: My considerations concerning this objection should be read together with my conclusions regarding land to the north of Lightfoot Lane/ Hoyle's Lane at Section 1.3.5.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 43

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Objections : O/120/1/G2 MRS B WIGNALL

PBC Response no. : PBC/57

ISSUES

1.3.6.1 Whether land to the north of Lightwood Lane and to the south of the M55 should be redesignated open countryside from Amenity Greenspace in accordance with PIC/03/R2 or whether it should be re-allocated for employment or leisure uses.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

1.3.6.2 PIC/03/R2 proposed to alter the allocation of a large tract of land, of which the objection site forms a substantial part, to open countryside. The Council indicate that the change has not been proposed in response to a particular objection, but rather to ensure that the local plan addresses the large undeveloped sites on the edge of the urban area in a consistent manner.

1.3.6.3 The objection site is agricultural in character and as such I consider its allocation as open countryside is more appropriate than Amenity Greenspace. Similar changes have been promoted under PIC/01/G2 and PIC/04/R2 and I consider that PIC/03/R2 shows a desirable level of consistency in its suggested allocation as open countryside.

1.3.6.4 Although the Council refers to a consistency with the boundary of the urban area to the west of the railway I consider, in that the objection site is more narrowly confined between the M55 and the urban area of Preston than is the area to the west of the railway, there is greater reason for the retention of the openness in this area. Consequently I do not consider its re- allocation for leisure or employment use to be warranted.

************************* 1.3.7 GENERAL SUMMARY - PRESTON URBAN AREA

1.3.7.1 I have concluded above that further allocations of land for residential and ancillary development should be made at the settlements of Whittingham/Goosnargh, Broughton and Grimsargh, in order to ensure conformity with LSP policy and to enable a greater choice of housing land. Consequently I consider that there is no overriding need for additional development allocations to be made in connection with the above objection sites.

RECOMMENDATIONS - PRESTON URBAN AREA

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.1.10) the inclusion of PIC/01/H2;

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 44

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(REC.1.11) the inclusion of PIC/03/R2;

(REC.1.12) the inclusion of PIC/04/R2; but that no other modification be made to the plan in response to the other objections.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 45

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

GOOSNARGH/WHITTINGHAM

Explanatory Note: Within the general area of Goosnargh/Whittingham a number of site specific objections have been made to the non-allocation of land for development. In addition to objections made by the NHS Executive concerning the amount of development to be allocated at Whittingham Hospital, including the non-allocation of land at Gotfield Farm Fields and to the rear of Cumeragh village, objection was also made by Bellway Homes Ltd to the non-allocation of two parcels of land immediately to the west and east of Goosnargh village. Objections seeking a return to the village boundary in the PRALP are made by Mr Henderson and Mrs Leeming concerning land to the rear of 907 and 909 Whittingham Road.

*************************

1.3.8 WHITTINGHAM HOSPITAL (INCLUDING GOTFIELD FRONT FIELDS) POLICY SS32

Explanatory Note: Apart from the general objections made to the Council's approach to Policies R8, RNEW and SS32 related to Whittingham Hospital there are several site specific objections also related to this site which involve a number of other local plan policies. These relate to Policies G7, CF1 and W1, and my considerations and conclusions on these objections are set out below.

Objection : O/71/10/H2 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/70/63/SS32 GONW (CW) O/71/18/SS32 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/71/3/G7 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/71/14/W1 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/71/15/CF NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/98/3/SS32 GRIMSARGH PARISH COUNCIL (CW) O/147/1/SS32 WHITTINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL O/124/6/SS32 HAIGHTON PARISH COUNCIL AND HAIGHTON AND GRIMSARGH ACTION COMMITTEE O/154/8/SS32 RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION

OPC/71/32/CF1 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST OPC/71/36/SS32 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST

PBC Response nos. : PBC/26, 26a-i & 119

ISSUES

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 46

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.3.8.1 Whether Policy SS32 should be reworded to reflect a specific and larger allocation of new housing at Whittingham Hospital and in a more flexible manner to that set out in the DP.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

1.3.8.2 I have concluded above that: the Council has considerably underestimated the housing land supply; that Policies R8 and RNEW are not in conformity with the LSP with regard to its approach towards the recognition and implementation of the strategic growth location at Goosnargh/Whittingham; and that the viability of a 375 dwelling allocation for the objection site is questionable. I have also concluded that LSP Policy 6(b) gives express guidance on the scale of development at this strategic location and that the plan should be amended to include a specific policy on the principle of Goosnargh/Whittingham being accepted as a Strategic growth Location to accommodate growth in the longer term of the order of 1000 new dwellings.

1.3.8.3 That said, the Council have directed their concern to the achievement of the development of the "brownfield" sites within Whittingham Hospital. These are, in the main, the footprints of the former hospital buildings. This clearly is also the main rationale underlying the promotion of the strategic growth location and as such I am satisfied that such development should be the first priority of any development of the Goosnargh/Whittingham area. Whilst it is accepted by the NHS Executive that these footprint sites should have priority for redevelopment, it is argued that development does not need to be exclusively upon "brownfield" footprint if another principal objective of the strategic growth location, i.e. to ensure proper integration between the existing communities and any new development at the hospital, is to be achieved.

1.3.8.4 The Council indicate that the extent to which any larger location can take further development has never been the subject of an environmental assessment in terms of the full range of environmental effects and the capacity of the area to assimilate those effects. In the Council's view, if the location is to realise further development outside the current Local Plan period, then such a study should be carried out and completed by the time of the Local Plan Review. This would enable further areas for development, beyond the physical footprint of the currently developed site, to be identified for future development against the appropriate housing targets of the LSP Review. To do so now would, in the Council's view, because of the harm to the Development Plan Strategy, be premature. Prematurity would exist both within the meaning attributed to the word in PPG1, in that it would pre-empt decisions as to the scale and location of development, and because of the absence of such a study. For the reasons I have set out, both in my considerations of Policy H2 matters and with regard to the Council's approach to Policies R8 and RNEW, I do not accept this argument. In my view the Council's approach can only cause unnecessary delay in the implementation of the development strategy of the LSP.

1.3.8.5 Whilst not undertaking an environmental appraisal of the Goosnargh/Whittingham area the Council has, however, also chosen not to rebut the landscape and visual amenity evidence put forward by objectors relating to the Whittingham Hospital Site (including Gotfield Front Fields). As part of this evidence the objectors put forward an illustrative layout for the area. The principles underlying this layout were not challenged by the Council. As part of their appraisal of the effect of development on the larger objection site the objectors considered: (a) the

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 47

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

relationship to the existing pattern of settlement; (b) the relationship to the existing pattern of landscape features; and (c) the effect on the visual environment.

The Effect on Existing Settlement Pattern

1.3.8.6 The illustrative proposals of the objector envisage that the bulk of the development would take place within the 81 ha site of the former hospital and be well related to the existing pattern of development. Although the development of the open fields between the former hospital site and Whittingham Lane is controversial and considered environmentally damaging by the Whittingham Parish Council, I do not accept this contention. Unless development of these front fields is undertaken along with, but not in advance of, the redevelopment of the former hospital buildings then there would be little likelihood of any significant integration, either visually or physically, of the proposed hospital development and the settlements of Goosnargh or Cumeragh. Whilst the Parish Council draw my attention to the value of well used community facilities I have no doubt that these could well be accommodated within such a large scheme and, as such, would also assist the social integration of new and old settlement.

1.3.8.7 Whittingham Parish Council also point to para.34 of PPG3 which indicates that: "The need to respect local preferences means that specific proposals (for new settlements) should normally only be promoted through the district wide Local Plan...". Whilst I have had regard to this guidance I consider that there are special circumstances in this case that have led to the inclusion of Goosnargh\Whittingham as a strategic growth location in the LSP. Not least is the existence of the former hospital site and the need to integrate its future development into the local community. In this respect I am satisfied that a development of the order proposed by the Council, and restricted to the footprint of the former hospital buildings, would constitute little more than an isolated development in the countryside providing for little integration with the existing settlements of Goosnargh or Cumeragh.

The Effect on Landscape

1.3.8.8 The new development would for the most part lie within the framework of existing well established landscape features. My site visit confirmed the view expressed on behalf of the NHS Executive that the redevelopment of the main hospital building complex would to a large degree reflect the extent of existing development and would benefit from the containment afforded by the existing perimeter woodland cover. Similarly new development in the area to the north of the existing building complex would be contained by the existing perimeter tree belts which could be retained.

The Effect on Visual Environment

1.3.8.9 Extensive tree and woodland cover could be retained as part of any redevelopment scheme and comprehensive additional landscaping could clearly be associated with the retention and remodelling of existing open spaces. Consequently I am satisfied that the development proposals put forward by the NHS Executive would neither, give rise to any unacceptably adverse effects on the appearance of the area, nor affect the visual environment in general. The

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 48

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

principal area of open land affected would be Gotfield Front Fields. This area has a substantially enclosed character without significant links with the open countryside beyond. In my view the benefits of its development, in terms of integrating new and old, far outweigh its loss as an area of open land.

Summary

1.3.8.10 Having regard to the above, and the fact that the Council have not rebutted the appraisal of the NHS Executive concerning these environmental matters, I am led to conclude that the environmental implications of accommodating and integrating development, consistent with the designation of the area as a strategic growth location, with the existing settlements are not likely to be so severe as to warrant deferral of its detailed consideration to the next Review of the Local Plan.

1.3.8.11 The need for comprehensive development of the former hospital is included both within the LSP and the DP and such an approach is, in my view, also necessary to implement the development of the wider Goosnargh/Whittingham area. This cannot be achieved if the local plan makes provision for only part of the area. Development on the scale proposed by the NHS Executive would not unacceptably harm the rural landscape or require the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, would enable the provision of the order of 750 new dwellings in the longer term, and provide the opportunity for securing economies of scale in the provision of basic infrastructure including improvements to public transport.

1.3.8.12 Moreover the proposals can only be of benefit to the prospects of the Broughton Bypass which is accepted to be essential if Whittingham/Goosnargh is to fulfil its role as a strategic location for growth. In this respect the Council as part of the Development Brief for Whittingham Hospital Site indicated that a financial contribution by the developer to this Bypass proposal could avoid a restriction on site development and traffic generation by accelerating road improvements. It is also accepted by the Council that development beyond 150 dwellings in the plan period is dependent on the construction of the bypass and that without such a bypass its proposal for 375 houses on the former hospital site is unsustainable. Given the traffic problems at Broughton, I have also concluded that, without commitment to such a bypass, no additional development should take place at Goosnargh/Whittingham. As such the Council's position, in terms of recommending 375 new dwellings on the hospital site and the deletion of the bypass, is both illogical and unjustified. These matters are dealt with in greater detail in Section 1.3.11.

1.3.8.13 Consequently I am satisfied that the plan should make provision for the full development of the hospital site to include provision for some 750 dwellings whilst recognising that only about 5-600 dwellings are likely to be built here in the period to 2006. I see no difficulty in such an approach which, although leading to an extension of development beyond the plan period, is fairly common practice in comprehensive developments where the planning of major physical infrastructure is necessary. To do otherwise would lead to unsatisfactory piecemeal expansion at a later date and would be the antithesis of the comprehensive approach towards mixed development, including the provision of affordable housing, which underlies the LSP designation as a Strategic Growth Location.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 49

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.3.8.14 I have also concluded that the development of the "brownfield" hospital site is the main rationale underlying the promotion of the strategic growth location. As such I am satisfied that the hospital site including Gotfield Front Fields should take priority in the implementation of the Strategic Growth Location. However, it still remains essential that the development of the larger Whittingham Hospital site is only considered as part of a defined longer term Strategic Growth Location which should itself be considered as a single entity.

1.3.8.15 Policy SS32 refers only to the hospital site and in my view is both unnecessarily prescriptive and excessively detailed whilst at the same time being deficient in its approach to the implementation of the Strategic Growth Location. Para.4.2 of PPG1 Feb 1997 indicates that: "It is essential that plan policies and proposals are realistic and provide for choice and competition. The plan should focus on essential land use issues and build in degree of flexibility. Highly detailed policies which provide no flexibility may become outdated very quickly as circumstances change. Such policies may then delay or prevent necessary development...". The Proposals Map defines to an unreasonable extent the exact scale, location and mix of uses that can take place on the site and as such is inflexible in its approach. In this respect I also accept the view expressed by NHS Executive that the designation under Policy G7 of the hospital cemetery is too detailed an approach, as too are specific references to Policy CF1 regarding land east of St.Johns Whittingham and Policy W1 towards the provision of employment land at Whittingham.

1.3.8.16 I conclude therefore that Policy SS32 should be deleted from the site specific section of the plan, a new policy created to deal specifically with the Strategic Growth Location and the Proposals Map be amended to include only the delineation of the Strategic Growth Location which I have concluded would need to include the larger hospital site (including Gotfield Front Fields). Such an approach, based on that previously adopted by the Council for the hospital site within the PRALP, would need to rely on a criteria-led policy setting out the framework for detailed decisions within the context of Supplementary Planning Guidance. Such Supplementary Guidance could also ensure that matters such as the recognition of existing public footpaths and their possible extension are given sufficient attention at the planning application stage as requested by The Ramblers Association.

*************************

1.3.9 LAND TO THE REAR OF CUMERAGH VILLAGE

Objection : O/71/11/H2 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST

PBC Response No: PBC/26

ISSUES:

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 50

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.3.9.1 Whether the objection site should be included as part of the Goosnargh/Whittingham Strategic Location for Growth and allocated for residential development within the plan period.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.3.9.2 The objection site lies on the edge of Cumeragh village which is effectively an outlying small housing estate of 60 dwellings of Goosnargh village itself located immediately at the north east corner of the hospital site. Consequently I am satisfied that the objection site which immediately adjoins this development, having housing development to west and south, is seen as being in association with the village and lies within the general framework of the strategic growth location. There are no ecological implications in its proposed development and the site is not the best and most versatile agricultural land.

1.3.9.3 The Council has not chosen to rebut the site specific evidence of the objectors and considers that there is no need to allocate the objection site and that its suitability depends upon whether any additional housing land is needed and how it fares comparatively with other sites that have been promoted in the strategic location. Consequently I conclude that, given the provision of additional landscaping along the northern and eastern boundaries, the allocation of this site would help achieve the long term target for the strategic growth location and without visually intruding into areas of open land which are important to the setting of Whittingham/Goosnargh. This being the case, and taken together with the fact that there appears to me to be few other suitable sites available than those already subject of objection, I am satisfied that this site should be included as a possible allocation within the area defined as the Strategic Growth Location.

1.3.9.4 I have concluded previously that Whittingham Hospital, including the Gotfield Front Fields should be considered as the first priority for allocation in the Strategic Growth Location. In that this site is more open and less well related to the main settlement of Goosnargh and Whittingham Hospital than either Gotfield Front Fields or the Bellway Homes East sites I consider that its development in the longer term will need to be assessed against the relative merits of the Bellway Homes West site discussed below.

*************************

1.3.10 BELLWAY HOMES EAST AND WEST

Explanatory Note: Although this objection relates to two individual parcels of land to the east and west of Goosnargh, similar issues are involved and as such I deal with them together. The parcel of land to the west has an area of some 3.9ha and is considered, by the objector, as being suitable to accommodate some 104 dwellings. The eastern parcel of land has an area of 8.88ha and is considered suitable for the erection of some 186 dwellings.

Objection : O/116/4/H2 BELLWAY HOMES LIMITED

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 51

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

O/116/2/R2 BELLWAY HOMES LIMITED

PBC Response no. : PBC/CP/4, PBC/26,26a,26b,26c,26d,26e,28,28a,

ISSUES:

1.3.10.1 Whether the objection sites should be included as part of the Goosnargh/Whittingham Strategic Location for Growth and allocated for residential development within the plan period.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.3.10.2 The objection sites are both contiguous with the urban area of Goosnargh Village and are both able to draw upon and contribute to the existing community and other services and infrastructure. As such, both sites lie within the general framework of the strategic growth location. There are no adverse ecological implications in their proposed development and the sites do not constitute the best and most versatile agricultural land.

1.3.10.3 The Council has not chosen to rebut the site specific evidence of the objectors and considers there to be no need to allocate the objection site. It considers that its suitability depends upon whether any additional housing land is needed and how they fare comparatively with other sites that have been promoted in the strategic location.

1.3.10.4 Whilst the objector, in support of the case for the immediate development of these sites, makes reference to the need to retain the visual gap provided by Gotfield Front Fields I have concluded above that I consider the development of this area to be essential if the proper integration of the development at the former hospital and Goosnargh is to take place. The sensitive development of this area of land provides the key to such integration and I do not accept the view that limited development of the hospital site would constitute an appropriate form of development to achieve this aim. Indeed I have concluded that the limited development of the hospital site would be little more than an isolated development in the countryside. The development of the objection sites, without the development of the Gotfield Front Fields, would constitute little more than isolated appendages to Goosnargh, and would provide for little integration between the Whittingham Hospital site and Goosnargh Village. Such integration is the fundamental intention underlying the strategic growth location policy of the LSP.

1.3.10.5 To my mind, as shown on the illustrative "Typical Landscape Master Plan" prepared by the objector, neither objection site provides the opportunity to contribute to the effective integration of the two areas. The western site, which although masking the intrusive western edge of the village, is little more than a westerly extension of the village completely unrelated to the Whittingham Hospital site. The eastern site whilst being more enclosed between Church Lane and Whittingham Lane is also largely physically divorced from the hospital site being located to the rear of properties in Whittingham Lane with only a single footpath access to this road. However in my view this eastern site does offer greater opportunity for integration with the development at the hospital site than would the western site or the land at Cumeragh. The

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 52

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

implementation of such integration is a matter that could easily form part of any development brief prepared as Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Strategic Growth Location as a whole.

1.3.10.6 Notwithstanding the above, I conclude however that both the Bellway Homes Sites East and West should be included within an area defined as The Goosnargh/Whittingham Strategic Growth Location and that the eastern site be allocated for development within the plan period. Further consideration could be given to the allocation of part or whole of each of the land at Cumeragh or the western objection site within the preparation of the development brief for the whole area.

*************************

1.3.11 LAND TO THE REAR OF 907 AND 909 WHITTINGHAM LANE

Objections : O/1/1/R8 MR L K HENDERSON O/5/1/R8 MRS O M LEEMING

PBC Response no. :PBC/96

ISSUE:

1.3.11.1 Whether land to the rear of 907 and 909 Whittingham Lane should be included in the plan as "existing primarily residential area".

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.3.11.2 The Council's decision to extend the PRALP boundary into open countryside was based principally on a planning consent given for a change of use which extended the garden areas of 951 to 961 Whittingham Lane into open countryside in the same manner as proposed at the objection site to the west.

1.3.11.3 The Council consider that the incorporation of this area within the extended settlement boundary would create a clearly defined settlement edge to this whole ribbon of development along Whittingham Lane which would be likely to form a long term defensible boundary, reflecting the depth of the majority of existing rear gardens. Whilst I appreciate the Council's attempt to regularise the boundary, the areas of land proposed to be included within the "existing primarily residential area" notation are clearly recognised by the Council to be open countryside. Para.9/94 of the DP does not, correctly in my view, include open countryside within the exceptions that apply to such designation.

1.3.11.4 Given this situation I am of the view that to include such areas within an "existing primarily residential area" notation would in fact lead to additional pressures on the open

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 53

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

countryside rather than provide the defensible boundary the Council wish to achieve. Such a situation would have been to some extent resolved had the Council used distinct settlement boundary designations defining the development limits of the principal settlements in the Borough. To my mind the designation "existing primarily residential areas" cannot be used for such purposes without causing confusion about the intentions of the plan with regard to backland development. No other designation is made within the plan which could be seen to adequately cover this situation. Consequently I consider that the boundary of the designation should be restricted to those areas that are clearly primarily residential in character.

1.3.11.5 I reach this conclusion notwithstanding that I have determined above that the area of land which adjoins these properties, i.e. Bellway Homes - East Site, should be included within a designation, to be shown on the Proposals Map, as The Goosnargh/Whittingham Strategic Growth Location.

*************************

1.3.12 GENERAL SUMMARY - GOOSNARGH/WHITTINGHAM

1.3.12.6 I have concluded above that Whittingham Hospital, including Gotfield Front Fields, Land at Cumeragh and the Bellway Homes Sites East and West could be included within an area defined as The Goosnargh/Whittingham Strategic Growth Location. These sites could, in the longer term, accommodate of the order of 1097 new dwelling sites. No other sites are subject of objection and consequently I am of the opinion that these sites could form the basis of the defined area of the strategic growth location the final boundary to be determined on the comparison of each site. Whilst the Council do not consider there to be sound reasons for long term development to be referred to in the plan, I have concluded otherwise and consider it reasonable to plan for a development of such a magnitude on the basis that it would be unlikely to be completed before 2011.

1.3.12.7 Accepting the definition of long term development which the LCC have put forward and which I consider to be reasonable, i.e 15 years running from the base date of 1996 to 2011, I consider the implementation of the long term target of 1000 dwellings would imply an average annual construction rate of 67 dwellings per annum. In accepting the 2011 date as the long term target for the development, I have had regard to the fact that such a date would be consistent with RPG13. However whilst this would result in some 670 dwellings being constructed in the plan period to the year 2006, practical recognition has to be given to two points: firstly, a period of time has already elapsed from the base date of the local plan and this situation will almost certainly continue in the short term whilst the plan continues through its statutory procedures; and secondly, development is dependent on the construction of the Broughton Bypass. For these reasons it is unlikely that development, above about 150 dwellings, could start before the end of 2001 and suggests that a higher building rate would need to be achieved imply an average construction rate of about 100 dwellings per annum. Whilst such a rate of development is high, given that a number of sites should be available within the area by that time, I do not consider it unreasonable to plan for about 600-700 dwellings to be constructed at Goosnargh/Whittingham before the end of the local plan period.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 54

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.3.12.8 I have concluded above that the Whittingham Hospital Site, including Gotfield Front Fields, should form the priority development site in the plan period and that Bellway East offers possibly the next best opportunity to further the integration of the hospital site with the existing development at Goosnargh. I have also concluded that further consideration could be given to the allocation of part or whole of each of the sites at Cumeragh or the western objection site within the preparation of the development brief for the whole area.

1.3.12.9 In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account further aspects of the landscape appraisals, carried out on behalf of both the NHS Executive and Bellway Homes, neither of which are challenged by the Council. These appraisals indicate that: development to the north of Goosnargh would be inappropriate due to the need to respect the setting of the old centre as well as the more open character of the landscape rising to the Forest of Bowland; for the most part, the existing south and south-eastern boundary of the hospital site corresponds to a significant break in landscape character descending from the hospital site plateau into the lower land of the Blundell Brook Valley; to the west of the hospital, in the vicinity of Whittingham Hall, there is a definite change in character of the landscape where the heavily landscaped grounds of the main hospital building give way to an open fields landscape beyond.

1.3.12.10 All of the above represent significant landscape constraints to development and, apart from possible additional sites to the north of the Bellway Homes West site and to the East of the Bellway Homes East site, few other sites, than those subject of objections, are likely to be considered as being suitable for inclusion within the general framework of the Strategic Growth Location. Consequently I am satisfied that a definition of a Goosnargh/Whittingham Strategic Growth Location can be made without further detailed study and delay. The Development Brief for the area would include the determination of: those areas of existing development, woodland, open land and specific buildings which should be conserved; which physical areas can be developed; what mix of uses should be aimed for; and the timing and phasing of new development up to the end of the plan period and in the longer term.

RECOMMENDATIONS: GOOSNARGH/WHITTINGHAM

I recommend that the plan be modified such that:

(REC.1.13) The Goosnargh/Whittingham Strategic Location for Development be defined on the Proposals Map to include: The former Whittingham Hospital Site including Gotfield Front Fields; Bellway Homes Site East; Bellway Homes Site West; land at Cumeragh; and the existing villages of Goosnargh and Cumeragh; and that a new policy and section be incorporated into the plan under Policy RNEW(1) as set out in (REC.1.16) below;

(REC.1.14) the heading, "Whittingham Hospital", on page 129 of the DP be deleted and replaced by a new section headed: "Goosnargh/Whittingham - Strategic Location for Development" under Policy RNEW(1);

(REC.1.15) Para.16/99 of the reasoned justification be amended and incorportaed into a new section under Policy RNEW(1) as follows:

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 55

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

"The approved LSP identifies Goosnargh/Whittingham as a strategic location for development to provide for a mix of new uses which may include: housing; business; retailing (to serve local needs); leisure and nature conservation. The former hospital at Whittingham has been closed in line with the "Care in the Community" policy of Central Government. Subsequent use of the site and buildings, in accordance with both national and structure plan policy, is catered for in the following policy.";

(REC.1.16) Policy SS32 be deleted and the following policy substituted within a new section under Policy RNEW(1):

"Policy RNEW(1) - As part of the long-term development of the settlement of Goosnargh/Whittingham as a Strategic Location for Development, sufficient land, in addition to 6ha of land for business and industrial use, will be allocated within the area defined on the Proposals Map as the Strategic Location for Development to enable the construction of about 700 dwellings with their associated ancillary facilities within the plan period. Priority will be given to the development of the former Whittingham Hospital Site including Gotfield Front Fields and the Bellway East site within the plan period.".

(REC.1.17) Paras 16/100 to 16/103 of the supporting text be deleted and incorporated into a new section under Policy RNEW(1) as follows:

" - A comprehensive scheme is required for the long term development of the area to an end date of 2011 in order that the planning, highway and traffic implications of a development of 1000 new dwellings and 12ha of B1 business uses can be assessed as part of the implementation of a balanced mixed development. Supplementary Planning Guidance is to be produced by the Council and will indicate: which areas of existing development, woodland, open land and specific buildings should be conserved; which physical areas can be developed; what mix of uses should be aimed for; and the detailed phasing of the development within the former Whittingham Hospital site (including Gotfield Front Fields) and the Bellway East site within the plan period as well as for the remainder of the area in the longer term.

- The Council will seek to negotiate contributions from developers, in connection with the grant of planning permission, towards the provision of related community infrastructure including public transport facilities. The construction of the Broughton Bypass is essential for the full development of the area and developers will be expected to make appropriate financial contribution to its provision". and that:

(REC.1.18) the Council give consideration as to whether the sites to the north of the Bellway Homes West site and to the East of the Bellway Homes East site should be included as part of The Goosnargh/Whittingham Strategic Location for Development

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 56

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

BROUGHTON

Explanatory Note: Within or adjacent to Broughton, objection was made to the non-allocation of land at four sites. Objection was made: by Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd concerning Land at Bank Hall Farm; by Redrow Homes (Lancashire) Ltd for two distinct areas of land to the east and west of the A6 at Helms Farm; and by the Trustees of Dickson Estate concerning land at Key Fold Farm. However before dealing with these sites, because they are all, to a greater or lesser degree, involved with the objections to the Council's approach to LSP Policy 34(b) concerning the Broughton Bypass, I first consider the implications of the objections to Policy T4 and its proposed deletion.

*************************

1.3.13 THE BROUGHTON BYPASS AND D'URTON LANE/EASTWAY LINK ROAD POLICIES T4 AND T5(A)

Explanatory Note: There were some 447 objections made to the DP regarding Policy T4. The Council on 31 March 1997, under PIC/01/T4, decided to delete Policy T4 and remove the safeguarded land from the Proposals Map. As a result some further 277 objections were made to PIC/01/T4. Because of the considerable number of objections made these are set out in Appendix 4. At the inquiry the Council were supported by both Concern for Broughton and Broughton Bypass Review Group and my references to "the Council" should be read as including the views of these groups. Similarly references to "the LCC" should be read as including the views of The Broughton Bypass Support Group which fully endorse the approach of the LCC.

For the sake of clarity, and because the material considerations involved with the consideration of these matters are numerous, I have grouped my considerations and conclusions under a number of headings. These are: General Planning Matters; Traffic Need; The Environmental Context; Alternative Proposals, and; Development implications. I also include a General Summary of my Conclusions on the material considerations. My recommendations are set out at the end of the section with other development recommendations for Broughton.

Objections: See Appendix 4

Response Nos: PBC/25 & 25a-q

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 57

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

ISSUES

1.3.13.1 Whether provision for the Broughton Bypass, as proposed in Policy 34(b) of the LSP, should be made in the plan in the form of an indicative line on the Proposals Map and as a policy within the plan or whether, as proposed to be amended by PIC/01/T4, it is so environmentally unacceptable as to warrant its deletion from the DP, having regard to:

General Planning Matters:

- strategic planning matters - government guidance - procedural matters - the burden of proof

Traffic Need

- policy changes - traffic - road design

The Environmental Context

- air quality - cultural heritage - construction - ecology and nature conservation - landscape - land use - traffic noise and vibration - pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and community effects - water quality, geology and soils - impact policies and plans

Alternative Proposals

- a western bypass - a Whittingham Lane diversion - Route A

Development Implications

- Goosnargh/Whittingham and Broughton - Funding

General Summary

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 58

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

GENERAL PLANNING MATTERS:

Strategic Policy

1.3.13.2 The main purpose of the A6 is as a primary route linking Lancaster to Preston and as such it is used extensively by commuters. In addition to the A6, the B5269 Whittingham Lane/Woodplumpton Lane runs east west through the village and crosses the A6 at a signal controlled junction, the Broughton Crossroads. The A6 is single carriageway as it passes through Broughton and the route is built up for much of its length with a range of service facilities including houses, shops, public houses and a petrol filling station. It also provides access to a church, an ambulance station, primary school, a secondary school and an hotel. In the built up area, the roads and footways are restricted in width right up to the back of the footways. It is accepted that the junction at Broughton Crossroads is operating at capacity at peak hours and that significant queuing occurs at this junction. On-line widening of the A6 is not considered by the LCC to be a viable option and is not suggested by objectors.

1.3.13.3 Broughton Bypass is included in the adopted LSP under Policy 34(b), subject to the carrying out of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), as a road proposal included in a package of measures designed to provide better conditions for public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. When completed it would be incorporated into the Other Main Routes network which, along with the Primary Routes, form Lancashire's Strategic Road Network.

1.3.13.4 The DP contained provision for a Broughton Bypass under Policy T4 and at that time the plan, with respect to this policy, was considered by the LCC to be in conformity with the LSP. As such, the objection lodged by the LCC to Policy T4 was related to the fact that the Bypass had been dealt with in an inappropriate manner, in that the plan showed a safeguarded area of land for the bypass to the south of Whittingham Lane rather than the specific route adopted by the highway authority and thus was considered not to comply with national policy guidance. However, as a result of PIC/01/T4, which proposed the deletion of both Policy T4 and the area of safeguarded land from the Proposals Map the LCC consider the plan to be out of conformity with the LSP on this matter.

1.3.13.5 The Council's reasons for the deletion of the scheme, agreed by the Policy and Resources Committee on 5 March 1997 and endorsed by Council on 20 March 1997 were: "Following the Environmental Assessment of Schemes A and B which was reported to members of the Council, it is felt that the environmental consequences do not justify either road scheme and the LCC should be requested to reconsider its preferred Route B and come forward with proposals which more fully reflect the objectives of Policy 34(b) of the approved structure plan; i.e., a package of measures to improve the environment to provide better conditions for public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. This reflects public opinion regarding environmental issues and rural development.".

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 59

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Government Guidance

1.3.13.6 Government Guidance within PPG12 indicates in para.5.9 that: "Structure plans should provide the overall statement of the overall strategy and use of land in the county, indicating how the balance between development and conservation has been struck and how development will be served by transport and other infrastructure. ...". Para.5.28 states: "The structure plan should specify the network of major roads of more than local importance ... The plan should set any major improvements to the network proposed by the local highway authority and its broad policy on priorities for minor improvements. In this way the need for strategic local road schemes can be investigated as the structure plan is prepared.". Para.5.31 states: "In the case of local authority road schemes of a strategic nature shown in the structure plan, consideration in the local plan process should normally be limited to detailed alignment, because the need will already have been examined. Any objections to the proposed alignment will be heard at the public local inquiry. If detailed consideration of the scheme were to reveal that it would cause unacceptable damage to the environment, consideration could be given to its deletion or relocation, together with associated changes in development.". Para.5.33 states: "It is at the time when the highway authority seek to grant themselves planning permission that the formal EIA should be considered. But it will assist that process if the environmental considerations of new roads are taken into account in plan preparation.".

Procedural Matters

1.3.13.7 Having regard to the above, the LCC considers that the local plan process is directed to consideration of the site specific matters associated with the Broughton Bypass, and principally its alignment. In this instance therefore it is felt that consideration of the alignment proposed should be focused on the merits or otherwise of "Proposed Route B (Revised)". It is that route which has been adopted by the LCC as highway authority. Moreover it is considered that the guidance clearly indicates the requirement that the local plan must show the proposed alignment of the road scheme, in order that detailed consideration may be undertaken at the local plan inquiry. I have some sympathy with this view and consider that the Council have acted unreasonably in proposing the deletion from the plan, under PIC/01/T4, of reference to the Bypass, the principle of which had already been decided by the structure plan process.

1.3.13.8 In reaching this conclusion I have also had regard to the fact that, in making such a deletion, the Council has not given due weight to the effect of such a deletion on the implementation of the Goosnargh/Whittingham Strategic Growth location. In this respect the Council have put forward no specific proposals or reasoned justification, as proposed changes to the plan, to deal with the consequences of the proposed deletion. However whilst I consider the Council's approach to be unreasonablet, in this instance, due to the existence of the first LCC objection, such an approach has not adversely influenced the extent to which detailed consideration was given to the matter of the Bypass at the inquiry.

1.3.13.9 The Council point to the fact that PPG12 makes it clear that a road scheme could be deleted at the local plan stage if it would cause unacceptable damage to the environment. It seems to me therefore that, if sufficient information is available on the environmental

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 60

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

consequences of the scheme at the time of the local plan inquiry, then it is appropriate that it is taken into account. Consequently I am satisfied that should the Councils view, regarding the unacceptable environmentally damaging consequences of such a scheme, be substantiated then it is acceptable that it could be deleted at the local plan stage. However the guidance is also clear that, in proposing the deletion or relocation of the scheme, consideration should also be given to associated changes in development, necessary due to the scheme deletion or relocation.

1.3.13.10 I consider this matter in more detail later in this section with regard to the Goosnargh/Whittingham Strategic Growth Location but it is clear that the Council have given little or no consideration to the development consequences of the deletion of the Bypass. Indicative of this situation is the fact that the Chairman of the Community Development Sub- Committee indicated that he accepted the non-implementation of the Bypass proposal would mean that Goosnargh/Whittingham would not be able to be considered as a strategic growth location. Notwithstanding this situation the Council continue to argue for the accommodation of some 375 new dwellings at the former Whittingham Hospital site. This is a situation that cannot be justified.

1.3.13.11 In reaching these conclusions I have also however taken into account that a Stage 2 EIA has been produced as detailed in the Manual for Roads and Bridges Vol.11. This Stage 2 assessment, which is the second of three levels of assessment defined in the Manual, is defined as being sufficient to identify the factors and effects to be taken into account in choosing route options and to identify the environmental advantages, disadvantages and constraints associated with broadly defined route corridors. In this respect the Council has concluded that such an assessment provides sufficient information to enable them to justify the deletion of the structure plan proposal. Stage 3 corresponds to assessment prior to the publication of an Environmental Statement but after the selection of a preferred route. Although it is surprising that a Stage 2 assessment was considered appropriate to submit with the planning application, now held in abeyance, and then only some two years after the submission date, it is only with the consideration of a planning application that a Stage 3 EIA of the preferred route would be made.

1.3.13.12 Having regard to the above I consider that the Stage 2 assessment provides sufficient information to enable me to conclude on whether the environmental effects of the detailed alignment of the scheme are such that it is suitable for inclusion within the local plan. A conclusive view, as to whether the environmental harm is too great to justify the construction of the bypass, can only be finally determined after the production of a Stage 3 EIA at a later stage. In that the final decisions on the construction of the Bypass are not within my remit this is a matter for consideration at the planning application stage.

Burden of Proof

1.3.13.13 It was accepted by LCC at the inquiry that no distinction could be drawn between the two LCC objections, as such the Council considers that the burden of proof is on the objectors to show the advantages of the bypass to ensure its inclusion within the local plan and refers to the decision in "Electricity Supply Nominees and Others v SOS and Northavon DC (1992) 2 PLR 70". However PPG12 is quite clear that, normally, in connection with the deletion of a strategic

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 61

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

road proposal (i.e. one within the structure plan) from the local plan, the test is whether it would cause unacceptable damage to the environment. I have determined above that the inclusion of such a scheme is a requirement of the LSP and that the Council have acted unreasonably in proposing its deletion without having regard to its development consequences. It seems to me therefore that it would be wrong for the LCC to now be required to satisfy a more stringent test than would have been the case had the Council not proposed, unreasonably in my view, to delete a prescribed structure plan proposal.

1.3.13.14 In that, normally, the Council's proposed deletion of a strategic road included in the LSP can only be justified on unacceptable environmental grounds, I consider the only requirement for the LCC is to provide evidence sufficient to substantiate that this has not been so justified by the Council. The LCC has "proved its case" for the inclusion of a bypass in the LSP through the EIP process and, in the circumstances created by the Council, it is for the Council to substantiate "unacceptable environmental damage" to justify its deletion. The Council in its consideration of the Environmental Assessments of Routes A and B do not appear to me to have applied such a test. It is implied by the Council, in its reasons for deleting the Bypass, that any road scheme should be re-justified by its environmental consequences and, in its case presented to the inquiry, that there is no advantage in the proposal of the LCC. For the reasons I have set out above I do not consider the approach taken by the Council to be appropriate.

TRAFFIC NEED

1.3.13.15 In a normal situation the discussion of need for the Bypass at the inquiry would be inappropriate and the line of the bypass would be included in the plan, leaving only the question of the alignment of that road. The Council argued at the inquiry however that although the need for a road is normally established in principle in the structure plan the phraseology of PPG12 permits exceptions. Whether an abnormal situation exists depends on whether there are exceptional circumstances which would justify a departure from the normal situation. In this respect the Council points to two grounds which it considers demonstrate abnormal circumstances. These relate to policy changes and to environmental harm involving respectively: a change of circumstance and the re-examination of the extent of the need in traffic terms against environmental harm. It is submitted that it is appropriate to re-examine the traffic case put forward by the LCC as this has been in dispute and further detail is considered now to be available than that which was available to the EIP Panel.

Policy Changes

1.3.13.16 Significant policy changes are seen by the Council to be concerned with: RPG13 and an altered approach to the trunk road programme; the infancy of PPG13 when the Panel considered the issue of the Bypass such that concepts of reduction in vehicle emissions, sustainability, and modal transfer were still being incorporated into planning decisions; and that there are significant and changed circumstances in the traffic situation since its consideration at the EIP as well as a change brought about by the opening of Junction 31A. In any event, in the case of environmental harm, the Council consider the strength of the traffic case to be relevant in the ultimate decision as to whether to delete the proposal because of environmental dis-benefits.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 62

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.3.13.17 It is asserted by the Council that there has been a "minor revolution" in planning and transport policy, "seen recently by the new administration, and more broadly with focus on environmental issues such as reducing vehicle emissions". To date, however, I consider there has not been any change of any substance in transport policy from that of the previous administration. Current national policy regarding transport and the environment is set out in the framework established by the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" published 1990. The Government's sustainable development strategy "Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy" and PPG13 were both published in 1994. Since the close of the Inquiry a further White Paper has been produced in July 1998 titled "A New Deal for Transport - Better for Everyone" and I have taken this into account.

1.3.13.18 With regard to RPG13 it was accepted by the Council that there was no material change in regional guidance between the draft that was before the EIP Panel and the full published document. In any event the LCC had access to the full published document when it adopted the LSP. Although the Council also pointed to various publications which it claimed illustrated change in Government policy, in my view, these indicate only that the present administration was continuing the approach of the previous administration so far as the sensitivity of road planning is concerned. Whilst the latest Government White Paper indicates the Government's intention to create a better more integrated transport system, the implications of this new approach cannot, until the publication of revised guidance, be fully assessed at this stage.

1.3.13.19 Having regard to the above, I consider the Bypass proposal was tested at the EIP in 1995 within an up-to-date policy context and within the context, at that time, of current government guidance. No evidence is before me which would lead me to conclude that such policy was not taken into account by the Panel notwithstanding the infancy of PPG13. I conclude therefore that were no significant changes in policy that would have justified departure from the normal consideration of the detailed alignment of the bypass or that would justify the re- consideration of need.

1.3.13.20 Moreover the Chairman of the Panel indicated, at the conclusion of the discussion on the Bypass at the EIP, that: ".. the broader environmental implications were within their purview ... and in the light of the representations on both sides, and in the light of what the DoT has said, and possibly in the light of another look at the site, we will evaluate the position and make a considered judgement in the Panel report. .... I think we both here and on the Panel and the Secretary, we are all very well informed now of what is at issue. ..". I have heard nothing to contradict this conclusion and although the Council are of the view that the EIP gave very limited consideration to the environmental effects of the scheme it is clear to me that the broader environmental matters had been taken into account. The Panel also concluded that: "Subject to the normal assessments of a detailed proposal, the panel support the principle of a Bypass of Broughton, as being a road which could produce environmental and other benefits.". Clearly the Panel had considered that there was sufficient information before them to conclude on the need for the Bypass independently of the potential development of Goosnargh/Whittingham and did not consider at that stage that there was any need for any abnormal re-consideration of need.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 63

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Traffic Figures

1.3.13.21 The Council submits also that it is appropriate to re-examine the traffic case put forward by LCC in greater detail as this has been in dispute and that further detail is now available than that which was available to the Panel. This in my view is little more than an attempt by the Council to re-open the consideration of matters of principle which were dealt with by the EIP Panel. The EIP Panel also concluded: "other fiscal and traffic management measures, including restricted parking provision, may influence the traffic flows through Broughton to an extent but whatever measures are taken, without a bypass, there will be a large volume of traffic through the village.".

1.3.13.22 In reaching this conclusion the Panel had heard evidence, apart from the support for the principle of the Bypass by the Council through its officers, given by Concern for Broughton. This pointed to: Government policy, the Broughton Crossroads, the A55/M55 roundabout, the junction of the bypass with Whittingham Lane, road safety, junction 31A, an additional M6 junction, the effect on listed buildings and the strategic growth location. Specific consideration was given at the EIP to: the constraints applying to the A6 through Broughton including those existing at the crossroads; a proposed new junction on the M6 and its relationship to a junction 31A. With regard to the latter proposal, the objections of the DoT were also heard and, notwithstanding the possibility of new slip roads to junction 31A, I have heard nothing which suggests to me that there are overriding objections to this proposal which had not been considered including whether such a proposal would encourage the use of the motorway by "local traffic". I conclude therefore that there are no exceptional reasons that would justify the re-consideration of the traffic case before the planning application stage.

1.3.13.23 Notwithstanding the above however, examination of the Council's view that the fundamental issue is what are the traffic flows on the A6, leads me to conclude that the LCC view, concerning the actual growth in traffic on the A6, provides the more reliable estimate of the traffic situation. The accuracy of the 1995 A6/M55 count is accepted as are the AADF's of 24650vpd on the A6 between that junction and D'Urton Lane and 2100 on D'Urton Lane. Even taking into account the Council's estimate of 1000 vpd to account for movements to/from the Marriott Hotel and the Ambulance HQ, a figure disputed as being too high by LCC, the AADF on the A6 south of the crossroads would have to be, as a matter of simple arithmetic, 23650vpd or 12% more than the estimate of 21100. Moreover the June 1995 count at the A6/M55 roundabout when compared with the September 1990 count shows an increase at this point of 10.8% representing an annual growth rate of 2.07%. By comparison the NRTF predicted a growth during this period of 10.53% or 2.02% per annum marginally less than that on the A6. A similar rate of growth for the country is less than half that illustrated for the A6. Having regard to the above I consider that the Council have seriously underestimated the traffic flow on the A6. As a result I consider that a basic tenet of the Council's traffic case, i.e. that of no traffic growth on the A6, is flawed.

1.3.13.24 Moreover, whilst it is accepted that during the peak hours there is little change in traffic flows between 1990 and 1995, this in my view can be explained by the fact that the signals at the crossroads are operating at or near to capacity. Consequently, although little traffic growth

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 64

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

appears to have occurred at peak periods, this can be explained by the fact that peak spreading has also occurred and this is evidence of worsening conditions and queuing along the A6. This having been said, I find it surprising that there are no time series of counts at the same location as might have been expected and no corroborative evidence in the form of empirical data to support the estimated growth figures. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the non-availability of this data, the adverse effects which the present levels of traffic are having both on road users and on the local community are considerable and ready justification for the Bypass.

Road Design

1.3.13.25 The Council consider, notwithstanding their objection to a Bypass, that a wide single carriageway road (WS2) would suffice. Having regard to my views on the Council's traffic case, I consider that the LCC offers the best advice available to me on the question of road design. The LCC estimate that traffic flow on the section of Bypass to the north of Whittingham lane would be 19900vpd and to the south of this junction 24100vpd. It is reasonable to assume that the maximum design flow for a WS2 road of 21000vpd would only apply to a long, level straight road with few junctions. This would not be the case with the Bypass where its alignment consists of two curves of 510m radius where no overtaking is allowed on a single carriageway, thus the capacity of a WS2 layout would be significantly below the maximum value of 21000vpd. Although there may be examples of roads carrying flows in excess of their design capacity I agree with the LCC that it would be wrong to deliberately set out to construct a road of inadequate capacity.

Summary

1.3.13.26 I have determined above that there are no exceptional policy changes which justify the re-consideration of need for the Bypass and also that there is also no justification for me to re- examine the traffic case in detail at this stage of the process. No exceptional justification has been illustrated which indicates that the need for the Bypass should be re-assessed and as such the local plan inquiry is therefore not the correct forum for such a re-consideration. The EIP Panel also concluded that there was a sufficient traffic case to recommend the inclusion of the Bypass within the structure plan independently of its view that such a bypass would be required to enable the implementation of the strategic growth location at Goosnargh/Whittingham. Consequently I accept the need for the bypass as defined within the LSP as being separately necessary to address the traffic problems on the A6 at Broughton and to facilitate development of the strategic growth point at Goosnargh/Whittingham.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

1.3.13.27 The environmental implications of the proposed bypass have been considered under some 12 specific headings. I consider each in turn and finish with a summary of my conclusions on the extent of environmental harm likely to be caused. However, whilst the Environmental assessment produced by the LCC refers to the effects on Development Land, I deal with this matter under a separate heading before my summary.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 65

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Air Quality

1.3.13.28 It is common ground between the parties that there would be an improvement in air quality on the A6 corridor given the construction of the Bypass. The Council argue that, as a result of current government targets, the level of pollutants will reduce to a level within permitted standards by 2003 and the requirements for cleaner vehicles. However whilst the pollution levels on the corridor may be at acceptable levels by 2003 even without the Bypass, such improvements in pollution levels are likely to be common to all alternatives considered. Air quality is most seriously affected by stationary traffic which is the situation which is most likely to be present throughout almost the full length of Broughton at peak periods.

1.3.13.29 The Council consider that although the pollutant levels within the vicinity of the primary school will be within the current limits there will be a seven fold increase in levels of benzene introducing a new character of pollutant into an extremely sensitive environment. Although this may be the case, the levels of such a pollutant introduced would be well below the unacceptable level currently being experienced in the centre of Broughton, and would still remain over fifteen times below the acceptable limit. Conversely the implementation of the Bypass would reduce the level of such a pollutant at the Post Office by some twelve times from a situation that currently exceeds the accepted level. Moreover taking the possibility of pollution dispersal into account calculation levels at the primary school would be likely to reduce given the open landscape and prevailing south west wind whereas at the village centre the levels would most likely increase due to the restricted "narrow canyon effect".

1.3.13.30 Having regard to the above I conclude that the Bypass proposal provides considerable advantages in reducing the exposure to pollution of persons living near to and walking and cycling along the A6 in the centre of Broughton.

Cultural Heritage

1.3.13.31 The Council considers that the Bypass will do no more than relocate traffic impact to another part of the village. Although I recognise that a number of residential properties in Whittingham Lane would certainly be greatly affected, the removal of the vast majority of traffic from the A6 within the village centre would clearly enhance the character of the village and facilitate the development of a true focal centre for the benefit of the vast majority of its residents. Whilst it suggested that the true focus of the village is the school and church I do not consider, because of its physical separation from the main residential areas, this area to represent the physical village centre. This is clearly more allied to the area adjacent to the cross roads.

1.3.13.32 Reference is made by the Council to the effect of the Bypass on the setting of the group of listed structures having a group value and associated with the church, a Grade II* Listed Building, and the school. In my view however, although there clearly will be some substantial impact on the landscape of this area, the effect on the views of this group of buildings, when viewed from the open valley alongside, is already "partially closed off" by the mature trees which form a south and eastern boundary to the church and churchyard. These trees largely screen the buildings from the valley and although there is a pleasant pedestrian access to the church and churchyard from the car park across the valley this access does not in my view form the main

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 66

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

constituent of the setting of the church. In my view the main views and setting of this group of buildings is formed by the approach along Church Lane where the setting of the group of buildings can be seen against the background of the mature trees along the brook line.

1.3.13.33 Given that this existing screening could be further strengthened, and the effects of the scheme moderated by the introduction of earth mounding and planting to the extent that the setting of the group would be preserved, I do not consider that the effect of the Bypass proposal would be so unacceptable on this area as to warrant its exclusion from the plan. Whilst there is a possibility that there may be archaeological interest in the areas associated with the church and Broughton Hall, there are no known features of archaeological merit that would be affected by the proposed Bypass. Careful monitoring of excavations could ensure the preservation of anything of archaeological importance uncovered. Taking into account the beneficial effects of removing traffic from the centre of the village I consider that, on balance, there is distinct advantage in the provision of a Bypass even taking into account its effect on the valley area.

Construction

1.3.13.34 The whole period for the construction of the proposed Bypass is considered unlikely to exceed 15 months and research by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory has shown that disruption due to construction has most impact on people living within approximately 100m of the works. Impacts on vehicle travellers consist primarily of longer journey times during the construction period whilst the natural environment maybe temporarily affected. There are about 73 properties that would lie within 100m of the proposed construction of which 7 would be demolished. Of the remaining 66 these are mainly residential but include the church and the school.

1.3.13.35 Given that the construction works would be temporary in nature, careful planning and management can ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum. Such measures as constructing mounding early in the contract and careful time restriction on construction operations could help minimise the disruption that will be caused. Whilst a scheme of such size will inevitably cause some disruption I do not consider, due to the temporary nature of such disruption, that this can be given significant weight in the balance of my considerations. Ecology and Nature Conservation

1.3.13.36 There are no statutory Nature Conservation Sites, no non-statutory Biological Heritage Sites and no Ancient Woodland Sites affected by the proposed Bypass. Furthermore there are no sites affected which appear on the Invertebrate Site Register and no record of the presence of Great Crested Newts. However there are three areas of concern which have been outlined by English Nature. These concerns involve the effect of the road and necessary mitigation measures: on the pond clusters and their associated amphibian communities north and east of Broughton Park Hotel; on the wildlife corridor of Blundell Brook; and the sycamore dominated woodland north of Broughton alongside the existing A6.

1.3.13.37 The main ecological impact concerning habitats and species would be disturbance to breeding birds and mammals and impact on amphibian terrestrial habitat adjacent to ponds. The effect on woodland is only moderate and, although the exact ecological impact has not yet been

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 67

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

assessed, the effect on the Blundell Brook wildlife corridor is proposed to be mitigated in the design of the proposed Bypass by the inclusion of an open span structure to cross the brook and the provision of an area on both banks of the brook to maintain wildlife corridors. With regard to the severance of the cluster of ponds, which might have a significant effect on amphibian populations should they be present, only one pond would be directly affected and the vast majority of them are located in a main cluster to the west of the proposed route. There is no evidence before me about the effect on the majority of these ponds other than a conjecture by Concern for Broughton/Broughton Bypass Review Group that the water table may be affected by the proposed road where it is cutting.

1.3.13.38 Although further survey work is required concerning these matters I have heard nothing which would lead me to conclude that the construction of the proposed Bypass would cause unacceptable damage to the ecology and nature conservation in the area.

Landscape

1.3.13.39 Whilst all of the proposed new route is within the landscape character group recognised within the LSP as Bowland Fringe and subject to protective Policy 15 of the LSP, this was clearly information available to the EIP Panel when arriving at their conclusion to include the Bypass within the LSP. A similar appreciation of the historic and architectural importance of the area to the southern end of the proposed Bypass adjacent to the school and church was also available to the Panel. The LCC consider that whilst there would be a moderate to slight adverse landscape impact across the area it is recognised that there would be a substantial adverse impact on the landscape of the area described as Blundell Brook Valley, Church and Environs.

1.3.13.40 It is also considered by LCC that such effects could be moderated and that there would be substantial beneficial impact on the quality of the landscape along the A6 corridor and at Broughton Village. Moreover it is also accepted by LCC that there would be substantial adverse visual impact on several properties, historic buildings, public open space, footpaths and community buildings, based on an assessment in Year 1 of the route being used by traffic. These impacts are however considered to be largely mitigated by proposed planting by Year 15.

1.3.13.41 However, some landscape impact of such a major scheme is inevitable and although I consider that the LCC have overstated the landscape benefit of the removal of traffic from the A6, I also consider that the landscape impact of the major part of the proposed route has also been overstated by the Council. With regard to the A6 corridor whilst I accept that the environment of this corridor would be considerably improved by the reduction of traffic, the landscape in the form of the wooded copses would change little. There would in my view however be added opportunities for the urban landscape associated with the physical centre of the village to be improved.

1.3.13.42 With regard to the Bypass the major part of the route involves the crossing of good to ordinary quality farmland landscape which is not exceptional in character albeit lying within an area defined within the LSP as Bowland Fringe. This is not a national landscape designation and it is significant that Policy 25 of the LSP identifies all areas of the County, outside urban areas, as lying within one of ten Landscape Character Tracts. Policy 25 of the LSP provides guidance on

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 68

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

what is important in each landscape and how it should be conserved. LSP Policy 25(v)(a)indicates: "In the Bowland Fringes, of the distinctive features within this tract, priority will be given: to the conservation of special features: ancient woodland and species rich grasslands; and to the renewal and enhancement of the landscape by: hedgerow and hedgerow tree planting and management and woodland and grassland management.". The area within which the Bypass is proposed to be located neither contains ancient woodland nor species rich grassland.

1.3.13.43 The main area of landscape effect is recognised as being the impact on the Blundell Brook Valley. Again, this area has no special landscape designation and whilst it is recognised locally as being of a very attractive quality, its main character is, in my view, associated with its small scale open valley nature which includes parkland type tree planting. Although the church and school buildings are included within the confines of the valley they are clearly separated from the open valley landscape by a belt of trees located along the line of the brook. I consider that further strengthening of this belt of trees would provide considerable mitigation of the visual impact of the road when viewed from the churchyard and school grounds, notwithstanding the elevation of the road where it crosses the present alignment of D'Urton Lane. The loss of part of this open valley landscape whilst being regrettable and of some local significance does not represent an unacceptable loss of landscape in a wider County or Borough context.

1.3.13.44 Although there would be other visual and landscape effects of the proposed road associated with the loss of trees, with its junctions at Whittingham Lane and the A6 to the north of Broughton and concerning the provision of accommodation bridges, all of these effects can in my view be effectively mitigated by additional landscaping including tree and hedge planting and mounding. Although there would be some loss of mature trees, amounting to about 100 in total and including part of an area of woodland in the north covered by a TPO, I consider, given the length of the route and the number of trees in the landscape, that the effect of such loss would not be so noticeable as to severely affect the landscape. In most cases the trees that would be lost are associated with existing hedge lines and groups where there loss would be least noticeable and where mitigation planting would have most effect.

1.3.13.45 Having regard to the above, whilst I conclude that the impact of the proposed Bypass is adverse and of greater significance than the landscape improvements that would be immediately obtained on the A6 corridor, I consider that the majority of these adverse effects can be adequately mitigated. As such I do not consider that the landscape consequences of the proposed Bypass are so great as to warrant the deletion of the line from the plan.

Land Use

1.3.13.46 The construction of the Bypass would require the demolition of seven residential properties and the loss of garden areas to three other residential properties. It would also involve the loss of the car park on D'Urton Lane and a small part of the playing field of the primary school. Apart from the loss of these properties the proposal would affect four farms in various degrees. One of these has already ceased to operate and another is only marginally affected. The remaining two farms are considered by the LCC to be able to remain viable units due to the proposed provision of accommodation bridges avoiding the severance of land. Whilst the

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 69

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

majority of the agricultural land affected is considered by the LCC to be Sub-Grade 3b land it is recognised that, despite this probable lower grading, the land is very productive and valuable to the farms affected.

1.3.13.47 The Council consider that the proposed demolition of seven dwellings in a scheme of some 2.3km in length is high and illustrates the extent of the environmental difficulties of inserting a road satisfactorily into an area which has many land use pressures and such opportunities for flexibility. Clearly whilst the impact of the proposals will be most severely felt by the individual property owners affected and there is little that can mitigate these effects, in a scheme of this nature it would be unusual if some properties were not affected. Given the extent of development in Broughton, the existence of ribbon development along Whittingham Lane and the complexities of accommodating the M55/A6/D'Urton Lane road junctions, I do not consider the amount of property affected to be unduly high and consider that the alignment has been as carefully selected to minimise its impact on land and property as is possible in the circumstances of Broughton.

Traffic Noise and Vibration

1.3.13.48 Whilst the Council are critical of the LCC's approach in not referring to PPG24 "Planning and Noise" the LCC have carried out their noise assessment in accordance with DMRB Vol 11. The nationally accepted ambient level of noise which triggers official grant schemes and above which mitigation measures would be required is 68dB(A). This figure is set out in para.7 Annex 2 of PPG24 which explains its relationship to the Noise Exposure Category B (NEC.B) set out in Annex 1 of the PPG. This category is defined as being a category where noise should be taken into account when determining planning applications and, where appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise. As such I consider the LCC approach to be acceptable. The figure of 55dB(A) used by the Council relates to NEC.A. It is defined as a category where noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning permission, therefore whilst a desirable aim, it is not, in my view, realistic to use such a figure in the determination of what is unacceptable in noise terms.

1.3.13.49 The Council accept that the ambient noise climate along the A6 corridor is noisy and that levels of noise would be reduced along it with the traffic relief from the Bypass. It is considered however that the Bypass would introduce a new noise source in a different location where the area in the vicinity of the church and school is of particular sensitivity. However, when taking the noise effects of the scheme as a whole, whilst there may be an increase in noise for about 120 properties, there would most likely be a decrease in noise for about 276 properties that lie within 300m of roads experiencing a decrease in 1998 traffic flows.

1.3.13.50 The Council takes the view that it is not just the numbers of properties affected but an overall position which reflects the sensitivity of the receptors and degree of changes as well as the quantitative position. However the fact that some properties may be assailed by noise from two directions, instead of one, does not alter the fact that the noise would still be significantly less disturbing. Moreover, a new source of noise in an area where people are, in the main, unused to traffic noise, whilst undesirable, is only material if it can be shown to be outside acceptable limits.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 70

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.3.13.51 Consequently I conclude that, in noise terms, the Bypass proposal has significant advantages over a do-nothing situation. In reaching this conclusion I have paid specific attention to the position regarding noise that would arise within the area around the church and primary school. In this area the situation is complicated by the existence of the M55 motorway as a significant source of noise and a noise measurement was taken in the vicinity of the school of 62.3 dB(A). With the Bypass, the M6 and M55 traffic increases the calculated noise levels at the school which calculations show to be 64.5 dB(A) in the year 2013. This represents an increase of 1.4 dB(A) over the situation without a Bypass. Calculations show that noise levels at the school could be reduced to 62 dB(A) by increasing the height and length of the screen fence. Whilst the Council consider that the noise from traffic on the M55 should be dealt with by separate mitigation, by the erection of an acoustic fence alongside the motorway, there is no evidence that this would be acceptable to the Highways Agency both in terms of its design or as to its funding. In my view therefore the school would benefit from the construction of the Bypass in noise terms.

1.3.13.52 With regard to vibration there is no significant evidence before me that would lead me to conclude anything other than the fact that the construction of the Bypass would have a beneficial effect in reducing vibration in the village by the removal of heavy vehicles. There is nothing which suggests to me that structural damage would be caused in any situation.

Pedestrians, Cyclists Equestrians and Community Effects

1.3.13.53 It is accepted by the Council that the unpleasantness of the pedestrian cycling environment along the A6 is undeniable and that the potential for severance effects is also self evident. However the Council have concluded that: "On balance, the effect of a Bypass is probably neutral in terms of community severance.". I cannot agree with this view as, whilst the Council point to the fact that a substantial part of the Parish is located to the south of the M55 and whilst the population here may use the school and church, major pedestrian and cyclist severance has already occurred with the construction of the M55 junction. Existing facilities at this junction are proposed to be retained and extended under the proposed Bypass to join the existing footway system on the old A6.

1.3.13.54 The construction of the proposed Bypass would enable the provision of the widening of narrow footways, a reduction in carriageway width, traffic calming measures and the provision of cycle-lanes. Moreover the removal of traffic would greatly enhance safety for school children at both schools within the village and for people using the community facilities within the village which are split either side of the A6. In this respect a large proportion of residential properties are located on the west side of the village and severance by existing traffic flows from the Bowls and Tennis Club, the Post office, the Primary School and the Church is substantial.

1.3.13.55 Having regard to the above I consider the beneficial effects of the proposed Bypass in relation to the pedestrian/cyclist and equestrian environment would be substantial and I am convinced that the Council have underestimated the value of such measures in terms of safety and environmental improvement. Whilst I accept the Council's view that, at present, this package of measures is not at the same level of design definition as the Bypass proposal, I consider that these are matters which would not normally be included in detail within the local plan. I consider

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 71

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

therefore that such a deficiency can readily be rectified, and is essential as part of the environmental capacity study I consider is necessary to ascertain the development capacity of Broughton. In this respect I consider the robustness of such measures is a determining factor in the assessment of the long term growth of Broughton (See Section 1.3.12).

Vehicle Travellers

1.3.13.56 The Council consider that whilst it is probably reasonable to conclude a net environmental benefit of the proposed Bypass for vehicle travellers in respects of local access and public transport, this is not regarded as a subject area of determining importance. In this respect vehicle access to the school and church would be significantly eased from the village due to the reduction of traffic on the A6. Whilst I agree with this view, the subject still remains as a material consideration to be weighed in the balance. In my view it is also reasonable to conclude also that users of the Bypass would be subject to less driver stress than is currently experienced on the A6 and that the views available to them would be considerably improved.

Water Quality, Geology and Soils

1.3.13.57 Other than an issue concerning the water table affecting the ponds, an issue which I have considered above, it is agreed that these matters are unlikely to be critical issues in the environmental equation.

Impact on Policies and Plans

1.3.13.58 I have already previously concluded that there are no significant changes in policy that would justify departure from the normal consideration of the detailed alignment of the bypass or that would justify the re-consideration of need. On a more local level the LSP includes the corridor which includes the M6, A6 and West Coast Railway Line as part of the Lancashire north-south transport spine as one of the Strategic Transport Corridors covered by Policy 33, which promotes the maintenance and improvement of spinal links.

1.3.13.59 The Bypass proposal includes a new link road to connect the Bypass with D'Urton Lane west of the M55 motorway and the LCC consider the benefits of this road to be considerable forming part of a continuous road between the Bypass and the B6241 Eastway east of the M55. Firstly, it is considered that this link road will provide alternative means of access to the M55 and to the Broughton Bypass for traffic on Eastway, avoiding the A6/Eastway and A6/M55 junctions. Similarly, traffic destined for the Business Park or Eastway from the A6 or M55 could also avoid these junctions. Consequently it seems to me that considerable traffic improvements are likely to be able to be made in the vicinity of the M5/A6 junction which would not be possible without the Bypass.

1.3.13.60 Secondly, it is considered that the link would bring relief to D'Urton Lane between the M55 and Haighton Green Lane which currently is subject to considerable use of traffic attempting to bypass the two above junctions. Without the Bypass, as shown on the Proposals Map it seems to me that this situation could only get worse, both producing additional traffic

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 72

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

problems at its junction with the A6 and adding to the environmental implications of traffic attempting to avoid the existing main junctions on the A6.

1.3.13.61 Without the Bypass the Preston East Employment Area, currently being constructed, and the Broughton Business Park, currently with planning consent, would both have an effect on the road network in this area by substantially increasing the traffic attracted to the area. In my view it is reasonable to conclude, as have the LCC, that without such a link to a Bypass the implementation of these developments would be restricted resulting in the loss of valuable employment opportunities notwithstanding the proposal to build a full junction 31A on the M6.

1.3.13.62 Having regard to the above I am satisfied that the proposed D'Urton Lane - Eastway Link Road is so closely associated with Policy T4 that it cannot operate without it. As such it should be deleted from Policy T5(a) and included within Policy T4.

Summary

1.3.13.63 Having regard to the above matters, whilst I have concluded that the net landscape effects of the proposed Bypass would be likely to be adverse during its first years I do not consider, weighing all the evidence before me, that the environment aspects of the Bypass Route B proposal to be so adverse as to warrant its exclusion from the local plan. Indeed I conclude there to be significant environmental advantages in the proposal of the LCC when considering the adverse effects that present and forecast levels of traffic are having both on road users and on the community of Broughton. The adverse effects of such traffic cannot be overcome by other than comprehensive measures including a Bypass.

1.3.13.64 I have also concluded that such a Bypass would also enable the introduction of a package of measures to improve the environment and to provide better conditions for public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. Whilst I consider that such a package of measures, is both practical and consistent with intentions of LSP Policy 34, I do not consider it to be necessary that such measures are expressly covered as proposals within the plan. In my view Policy T6 adequately provides the basis for their later consideration.

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS

1.3.13.65 Whilst no specific package of proposals involving an alternative alignment of the bypass is put forward by the Council I have given consideration to the various alternative alignments that have been put forward for consideration, even though they have not been submitted by the Council or other objectors as detailed alternative proposals.

1.3.13.66 The Council consider little attempt had been made by LCC to investigate alternatives to the bypass in a form which conforms with structure plan policy. These are matters relevant for my consideration. However whilst the environmental context of the Bypass proposal is a matter I have to consider, it is clear that the EIP Panel was previously aware of the majority of the proposals that are now being put forward as alternative solutions. In this respect the Council's

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 73

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

view that it wishes to see other measures than a Bypass to relieve the traffic at Broughton is not justified. Moreover, in that Para.5.31 of PPG12 indicates that consideration in the local plan process should be limited to detailed alignment, matters put forward involving: Do-Nothing; a new M6 Junction; Junction 31A and Local Improvements are not matters that are necessary for me to deal with. Consequently my consideration of alternatives will be limited to the Western Bypass; Whittingham Lane Diversion; and, Bypass Scheme A along with whether the proposals are elaborated in a form which is consistent with LSP policy.

A Western Bypass

1.3.13.67 To avoid demolishing numerous houses in the village any western bypass would need to cross the West Coast Main Line twice at an oblique angle. This would involve substantial cost and the provision of another junction on the A6 in close proximity to the M55. Consequently I consider that its rejection in the early consultation stages was completely justified.

A Whittingham Lane Diversion

1.3.13.68 This alternative would constitute a simple link between Whittingham Lane and the A6 south of the crossroads. Whilst this would allow an element of traffic to avoid the traffic signals on its own it would not provide any relief between Broughton Park and the M55 roundabout. Moreover, whilst traffic through the crossroads would be reduced, considerable traffic would still remain within the centre of the village and little opportunity would exist for the provision of improved facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. As such I consider its rejection by the LCC at an early stage of the process to be justified.

Route A

1.3.13.69 Route A was one of two possible solutions for a full bypass that was considered by LCC and both of these routes follow the same alignment from the roundabout south of Whittingham Lane to the A6 north of the village. The Council, who wish to see other measures to relieve traffic at Broughton, are still opposed to this route as it is still a bypass. It is accepted by the Council that, as currently drawn, it has a severe effect on the landscaped grounds of the Marriott Hotel but it is felt that the alignment could be looked at again in order to lessen that effect and that further environmental assessment is deserved.

1.3.13.70 The costs of the two alternatives showed very little difference in 1991 when the comparative costs of the two alternative routes were considered and it is still felt that there would be little difference. In traffic terms however, even taking into account modifications made to Route A to accommodate traffic generated by Broughton Business Park and Preston East Employment area, Route B is considered to perform significantly better. This is due to its ability to be linked with Eastway thus providing an alternative approach to the A6/M55 junction and also serving as a direct route from Eastway to the Bypass. This link is expected to reduce the amount of traffic entering the A6/M55 Broughton roundabout by about 30%.

1.3.13.71 Because Route A is common with the existing A6, between the M55 roundabout and Keyfold Farm, pedestrians and cyclists travelling between the village and the church and school

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 74

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

would have to proceed alongside the widened A6 and have to cross it. Lengthy detours would also be involved for vehicle travellers round the adjacent roundabouts due to the fact that the A6 in the vicinity of Church Lane and D'Urton Lane would be dual carriageway where right turns would have to be prohibited for safety reasons. As such considerable severance would be caused between these areas and the village.

1.3.13.72 Although this could be said to be balanced by a lesser effect on the Blundell Brook Valley I have concluded with regard to Route B that the loss of part of this open valley landscape whilst being regrettable and of some local significance does not represent an unacceptable loss of landscape in a wider County or Borough context. I have also concluded that the visual effect of Route B and of noise can be mitigated. Consequently having regard to the above I consider that Route B has significant traffic and environmental advantages over Route A.

DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS

Goosnargh/Whittingham and Broughton

1.3.13.73 The implementation of the Broughton Bypass has implications for both Broughton and the development of Goosnargh Whittingham. The fact that such a bypass would be required to enable the implementation of the scale of growth that is proposed for the strategic growth location at Goosnargh/Whittingham, or to enable an unspecified expansion of Broughton, has not been seriously questioned. The existing traffic signals at the crossroads are currently operating at or near capacity and limited mitigation of this situation at this location, by junction improvements, is accepted as being possible but unlikely to remove all delays. Such a proposal was not considered by LCC to be cost effective due to costs attached to land acquisition and the high number of services in the footpath.

1.3.13.74 I can readily accept, given the amount of investigation that has taken place over many years, that this is the case and I consider that any additional traffic generated by new development, either at Goosnargh/Whittingham or through the expansion of Broughton, would severely exacerbate traffic conditions at Broughton. Consequently I am in agreement with the LCC that although some development, probably of the order of about 150 dwellings might be programmed in advance of the opening of such a Bypass, given a firm commitment to its building, without such a commitment there is little scope for additional development.

1.3.13.75 Clearly therefore, the implementation of the Bypass is of essential importance to the Development Strategy of the LSP and to the Local Plan which should be in-conformity with it. In my view, the Council's unreasonable approach to the implementation of the development strategy of the LSP, is clearly illustrated by its deletion of the Bypass from the plan. The Council members was clearly aware at the time they took the decision to delete the Bypass from the plan that not only would the development strategy of the LSP not be able to be progressed but that its own strategy for the development of Whittingham Hospital would not be possible. I consider such a decision, which was taken at a later date than the other matters of non-conformity, would, if not re-considered, bring the plan out of general conformity with the LSP due to the fact that the housing development strategy as proposed would not be able to be achieved. In my view the housing development strategy of a local plan is one, if not the major constituent, of its essential

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 75

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

purposes. For the Council to treat this matter, and its relationship with a recently prepared and adopted Structure Plan, in such a cursory manner has resulted in the plan becoming out of general conformity with the LSP.

Funding

1.3.13.76 The implementation of the development strategy clearly depends on the possibility of the Bypass being implemented within the plan period. The LCC consider that there is a strong financial case for the construction of the road and, although this is largely uncontroversial, the Council consider that the extent of finance that has previously been attributable to the development might not be able to be justified under the provisions of Circular 1/97. The main source of funding for the Broughton Bypass is via the TPP system from the DoT, however the possibility of substantial contributions from private developments is considered to be very high. This would amplify the case for TSG and the prospect of funding of the construction of the Bypass is considered by the LCC to be high.

1.3.13.77 Circular 1/97 sets out Government policy for the use of planning obligations. Whilst Para B12 states: Developers should not be expected to pay for facilities which are needed solely in order to resolve existing deficiencies nor should attempts be made to extract excessive contributions to infrastructure costs from developers.", it goes on to state: "It might on occasions be considered acceptable for an obligation to be sought where it would overcome an existing constraint which is materially exacerbated by the proposal." Further advice is given within this paragraph which states: "Situations may arise where an infrastructure problem exists prior to the submission of an application for planning permission. Although the need to improve, upgrade or replace such infrastructure does not arise directly from the proposed development, it would clearly be inappropriate to grant planning permission for a development which is already unsatisfactory.". The latter situation clearly exists in the case of an application that has been submitted by the NHS Executive for the development of the Whittingham Hospital site. Any contributions would be subject to an appropriate agreement between the LCC and the appropriate developer.

1.3.13.78 Having regard to the above, and the fact that the NHS Executive have indicated its willingness to contribute to the funding of the Bypass, I consider that a Bypass is clearly capable of being constructed within the plan period. Furthermore given that the need for the Bypass is justified separately in terms of traffic and development need there is a compelling case for it to be included within the local plan.

1.3.14 GENERAL SUMMARY - BROUGHTON BYPASS

1.3.14.1 The construction of the Broughton Bypass is essential for the resolution of traffic problems at Broughton and for the implementation of the development strategy required by the LSP for Preston Borough. Without such a Bypass, not even the Council's local plan proposals for the development of the "brownfield" Whittingham Hospital site could be implemented. I have also concluded that Route B has significant advantages over any of the alternative proposals before me and that without its construction no package of measures would be able to provide significant environmental improvements to the community of Broughton. As such, this

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 76

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

alignment should be included within the local plan and the Proposals Map modified accordingly.

*************************

1.3.15 DEVELOPMENT AT BROUGHTON

Explanatory Note: My considerations and conclusions on this matter have to be read in conjunction with my considerations and conclusions with regard to Policies R8 and RNEW at Section 1.2. I have concluded there that I consider the plan should be amended to include a specific policy for the consolidation and expansion of Broughton within the plan period and that such site specific provision for Broughton is intimately bound together with considerations concerning the Broughton Bypass. Because the considerations with regard to the Bypass are, in the main, central to the overall development of Broughton I consider this matter prior to the consideration of the four specific objection sites.

Objection : O/92/3/H2 WIMPEY HOMES HOLDINGS LIMITED O/169/2/H2 TRUSTEES OF DICKSON ESTATE O/121/6/H2 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD

PBC Response nos: PBC/27,27a-f,29,29a-d,66,67,96 & 125

ISSUES

1.3.15.1 Whether specific housing sites should be allocated at Broughton having regard to the implementation and phasing of the Bypass.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

The Bypass/Broughton Village

1.3.15.2 I have concluded with regard to the Bypass that Route B should be included within the plan and that there is a reasonable prospect of its construction being completed by 2002/3. This conclusion reinforces my view that development of Broughton should be assessed before the next Review of the local plan. To my mind it is essential that a development strategy for Broughton be assessed and given some certainty as soon as possible. This having been said, objections have been made to the non-allocation of four sites which would be capable of accommodating an additional 1000 new dwellings if all were allocated in full. These sites are located at: Key Fold Farm (200-300 dwellings); Helms Farm East (100 dwellings); Helms Farm West (250 dwellings), and; Bank Hall Farm (350 dwellings). Before considering any site specific matters associated with the development of these sites it is first necessary to consider development at Broughton in the context of the situation prior to 2002/3, i.e. without the Bypass, and for the situation with the Bypass.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 77

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Without the Bypass

1.3.15.3 I have considered previously the existing traffic problems in Broughton and on the A6. Having regard to my conclusions with regard to the need for Route B to be included within the plan I cannot accept the view, expressed on behalf of the Trustees of Dickson Estate that the allocation of Key Fold Farm for housing is not dependent on the presence of a formal development plan proposal for a Broughton Bypass. My conclusion on this matter is reinforced by the fact that it is readily accepted by both Wimpey Homes and Redrow Homes that major development, similar to that proposed at Key Fold Farm, could not be accommodated without the implementation of the Bypass.

1.3.15.4 However, as part of their case for the allocation of land prior to the opening of the Bypass, it is suggested by the objector that a small scale development of the order of 100 dwellings could be accommodated at Bank Hall Farm and Helms Farm East without significantly exacerbating the traffic problems at Broughton crossroads. The effects of such a development on the traffic flows through the signals are considered to be able to be mitigated by minor improvements to the junction layout and enhancements to the traffic signal controller. However, whilst such mitigation may or may not be possible, this cannot alter the fact, given the existing severe problems at both the crossroads and the M55 motorway roundabout, that any such mitigation should be used firstly to improve the present position and secondly, in my view to provide additional capacity for the early implementation of the strategic growth location at Goosnargh/Whittingham.

1.3.15.5 I have taken into account the view that a development of about 100 dwellings is considered by the objectors to contribute less than the 5% increase in turning movements at the crossroads considered by the DoT to be material (Para.4 Annex B PPG13). However that paragraph goes on to indicate that: "Where the capacity of the junction is, or is near to be exceeded, a smaller percentage increase on a link would normally be material, ..". In the case of Broughton crossroads it is recognised that this junction is at or near to capacity and, as such, I do not consider this argument, put forward to justify additional development in Broughton prior to the implementation of the Bypass, to be good justification. Such an argument however may have greater justification on the completion of a Bypass.

With a Bypass

1.3.15.6 Whilst I have recommended, in accordance with the LSP, that a policy should be included in the plan for the expansion and consolidation of Broughton, this in itself does not justify the major expansion of this settlement. In my view the policy for the expansion and consolidation of the settlement could well be satisfied by the addition of small scale developments in appropriate locations. A major justification of the Bypass is that it would facilitate the improvement of the environment and provide better conditions for public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. I have concluded above that a bypass on Route B will help to achieve these aims and, as such, I consider that considerable care should be taken not to compromise their achievement. Consequently the assumption that the construction of the bypass would allow more traffic capacity within the village of Broughton, whilst being possible, should not lead to the conclusion that major development should automatically be considered acceptable. In my view

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 78

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

the principal development consequence of the Bypass is the development of the strategic growth location at Goosnargh/Whittingham. A similar purpose should not be attributed to it for the justification of a major development of Broughton without a clear understanding of the effects of such development on any package of environmental measures to be introduced as part of the Bypass proposal.

1.3.15.7 Reference has been made by several objectors to the fact that large housing allocations have been made elsewhere in Lancashire within Policy 7 and 8 settlements. Whilst this is patently correct, it is for the individual districts to assess the appropriate pattern of development in the particular circumstances of each settlement. The particular circumstances of these settlements are not available to me, but given the particular traffic problems of Broughton, and whilst accepting that large scale allocations may be consistent with strategic planning policy, I do not consider that major housing allocations are desirable without further detailed appraisal of the environmental capacity of the village. Consequently, neither do I consider that the application of a percentage approach to housing land allocation, between urban concentration and rural areas, has any justification in the case of Broughton. 1.3.15.8 I consider therefore, notwithstanding that I have determined there to be a shortfall of housing land within the Borough, and that Broughton complies with the strategic criteria set out in LSP Policy 7, the need to accommodate additional housing land in the Borough should not be overriding in relation to Broughton. The extent of development that could be accommodated therefore requires further study and should, in my view, be subservient to the package of environmental improvements to be introduced as part of the implementation of the Bypass. Nevertheless in that Broughton is large enough to generate its own internal needs for housing and community services and is also likely to face development pressures of its own I consider that some level of housing allocation is both practical and necessary within the plan.

1.3.15.9 Even though no such detailed appraisal has been undertaken by the Council, it is clear to me that large scale development would be likely to compromise the environmental benefits produced by the Bypass. In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account that one justification for the Bypass is that some 95% of existing traffic flow would be diverted onto the Bypass from the A6 and that such a reduction would allow the accommodation of additional public transport, pedestrian and cyclists facilities. At an estimated 6 trips per dwelling per weekday, a 350 dwelling development would put back 2,100 new trips into Broughton. This would represent a material increase in village traffic remaining after the Bypass had been constructed.

1.3.15.10 Nevertheless I do consider it to be likely that some additional capacity would be able to be created that would accommodate some additional housing. To my mind the allocation of land to accommodate a total of 200-250 dwellings in more than one location would clearly have less serious environmental implications for the village than a single major 350 dwelling development. Whether or not such allocations would result in less than 5% increase on any link of the relieved crossroads and M55 roundabout junctions, would be dependent on where such allocations were to be made. However the relieved crossroads junction would clearly not remain as a junction on a major county road and would, with the construction of the Bypass, not be subject of the provisions of Para.4 Annex B PPG13.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 79

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.3.15.11 Consequently I consider that the Council, in association with the LCC through the implementation of the Bypass proposals, should give consideration to the preparation of an Environmental Capacity study of Broughton with a view to assessing its longer term capacity to accommodate development and at the same time providing for the allocation of sufficient land to accommodate of up to 250 dwellings within the latter part of the plan period.

1.3.15.12 The Council have relied mainly on its views that the inadequacy of the existing road network to accommodate increased levels of traffic and that the present and future uncertainty of alternative proposals for development in this area, does not provide the requisite stability for determining the level at which LSP Policy 7 settlement status at Broughton can be defined. In my view the latter position is one of the Council's own making and to defer this decision would only cause greater uncertainty.

1.3.15.13 I can see no reason, given the level of information that is available to the Council and the LCC, why conclusions on the allocation of land for housing within the plan period could not be made prior to the modification stage of the plan. To leave such a matter for a later Review of the plan would not only cause uncertainty but would in my view result in the non-resolution of the matter before the end of the plan period. In my view such a study would enable the Council to meet the requirements of the LSP and also provide the necessary preliminary work for the next Review of the plan.

Site Specific Matters

1.3.15.14 The LCC have not assessed the robustness of the environmental package to be implemented with the Bypass and the Council have, neither carried out any general environmental appraisal of Broughton, nor felt it necessary to make site specific rebuttals of the objections to the proposals put forward by the objectors. This only adds to an unsatisfactory level of uncertainty concerning the development of Broughton which can only be rectified by the Council by the early consideration of an environmental capacity study.

1.3.15.15 Given this situation I am unable to make conclusive comparisons of whether none, any one, all, or parts of each of the four objection sites could be regarded as being consistent with the environmental package of measures to be implemented on the construction of the Bypass. Moreover these four sites do not include all the land within or on the edge of Broughton that may need to be included within the ambit of such a study and whilst each of them, if developed in full, would involve an expansion of the village, none would involve a planned consolidation of its urban core.

Key Fold Farm

1.3.15.16 Although the Council consider that the site specific aspects of the site have been dealt with in evidence relating to the Broughton Bypass, no specific reference is made, within this evidence, to the objection site. I have concluded, with regard to the effect of the Bypass, that the landscape and ecological effects are not overriding. Given that the Council considered Route A to have lesser environmental consequences than Route B the effects of development on the

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 80

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

objection site are unlikely to be so significant as to rule out its consideration at this stage for the allocation of some housing.

Helms Farm

1.3.15.17 The Council consider that development to the north of Broughton would erode the open rural character, which in contrast to land south of Broughton is not as enclosed or as influenced by nearby urbanising development. From observation at my site visits I confirm the Council's opinion. The Council however point out that it has not carried out any comparative studies of the landscape in Broughton and whilst, because of the openness of the sites, I do not consider these two sites to be suitable to accommodate large scale developments, I see no reason to exclude them from further consideration for lesser development.

Bank Hall Farm

1.3.15.18 Whilst the Council have made no site specific rebuttal of the objector's case for the allocation of this site for housing its allocation has to be seen against my conclusions above. Moreover from observation at my site visit, whilst I accept that the objection site is far more enclosed than sites to the north of the village, I consider the site is largely separated from the urban core of the village by the extensive playing fields of Broughton Secondary School. As such I consider that the extent of any housing allocation on this site can only be determined after further environmental assessment of the village and the package of environmental measures to be implemented on the construction of the Bypass.

1.3.16 GENERAL SUMMARY - BROUGHTON

1.3.16.19 I have concluded above that the Broughton Bypass (Route B) and the D'Urton Lane/Eastway Link Road should be included within the local plan and that Policies T4 and T5(a) be amended accordingly. I have also concluded that as a major justification of the Bypass is that it would facilitate the improvement of the environment and provide better conditions for public transport, cyclists and pedestrians, considerable care should be taken not to compromise the achievement of these aims by an over-development of the village.

1.3.16.20 I have accepted the Council's view that as Broughton is within 1km of the Borough's largest allocations for new business and industry, at Broughton Business Park/North Preston and East Preston/Redscar, these sites will provide more than adequate opportunities for local employment in the two settlements. Consequently it only remains for the local plan to consider the appropriate allocations of housing and other uses within the settlement.

1.3.16.21 With regard to the allocation of sites for housing however I do not share the Council's view that this matter can be left until a later review of the plan. I have concluded that Broughton is large enough to generate its own internal needs for housing and community services and is also likely to face development pressures of its own. Consequently, I consider that an appropriate level of housing allocation is both practical and necessary within the plan. I am of the opinion therefore that the Council should give early consideration to the preparation of an Environmental

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 81

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Capacity Study of Broughton with a view to assessing its longer term capacity to accommodate development and at the same time providing for the allocation of sufficient land to accommodate up to 250 dwellings within the latter part of the plan period.

RECOMMENDATIONS - BROUGHTON

I recommend that the plan be modified such that:

(REC.1.19) PIC/01/T4 not be accepted;

(REC.1.20) Policies T4 and T5(a) be deleted and replaced by a revised Policy T4 to indicate that provision will be made within the plan for a Broughton Bypass and the D'Urton Lane/Eastway Link Road as indicated by the LCC's approved scheme, as shown on Drawing No.10650/4a, and that the Proposals Map and supporting text be modified accordingly;

(REC.1.21) Policy T6 be amended to make specific reference to a package of environmental measures to be implemented at Broughton.

(REC.1.22) the Council give early consideration to the preparation of an Environmental Capacity Study of Broughton to determine the location of the development and having regard to the need to ensure that the provisions of Policy T6 are taken into account.

(REC.1.23) a new policy RNEW(2) is included within the plan to read: "Provision will be made for the consolidation and expansion of Broughton to accommodate up to 250 new dwellings to be occupied on the completion of the Broughton Bypass" and that an area is defined on the Proposals Map to make clear that the objection sites at Key Fold Farm, Helms Farm and Bank Hall Farm will be considered for development only as part of a comprehensive Environmental Capacity Study of Broughton.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 82

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

GRIMSARGH

Explanatory Note: Within or adjacent to Grimsargh, objection is made to the non-allocation of land: by Haighton Green Estates on the western edge of Grimsargh; by Redrow Homes (Lancashire) Ltd at Preston Road; and by Mr W J Briggs concerning essentially the same but slightly larger site than that at Preston Road. Objection is also made seeking the inclusion of several sites within the village settlement boundary by: Mr J Heaton concerning The Hermitage Elston Lane; Mr and Mrs Kerr concerning land to the rear of Nos 193 to 201 Preston Road; Mr Connolly concerning land at Tower House; and Mr M J Baines concerning land adjacent to Mill Dam Cottage.

*************************

1.3.17 LAND AT "THE HERMITAGE", "MILL DAM COTTAGE", "TOWER HOUSE" AND 193-201 PRESTON ROAD, GRIMSARGH (POLICY R2)

Explanatory Note: As objection is made by one objector to the question of the definition of village boundaries, and as this is the only objection on this matter, I deal with this together with the site specific matters concerning land at "The Hermitage", "Mill Dam Cottage", "Tower House" and at 193 to 201 Preston Road. All of the objections to these sites involve similar general issues concerned with the non inclusion of areas of residential curtilage land within the settlement of Grimsargh as defined on the Proposals Map.

With regard to "Mill Dam Cottage", in the DP the Proposals Map notation for the site is split between open countryside and woodland. PIC/02/R8 proposes to replace the woodland notation with one of open countryside such that the whole site would be notated open countryside.

Proposed Change: PIC/02/R8

Objections: 0/141/1/R8 MR J HEATON 0/141/2/R2 MR J HEATON O/93/1/R8a MR M J BAINES O/100/1/R2 MR M CONNOLLY O/100/2/H1 MR M CONNOLLY O/100/3/R8a MR M CONNOLLY O/138/1/R2 MR AND MRS C KERR O/138/2/R8 MR AND MRS C KERR

PBC Response no: PBC/3, 66, 90 & 96

ISSUES:

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 83

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.3.17.1 Whether the criteria for defining village boundaries should be included within the plan, and whether land at "The Hermitage", "Mill Dam Cottage", "Tower House" and at 193 to 201 Preston Road should be excluded from its designation as open countryside or woodland and included within the settlement boundary of Grimsargh such that Policy R8 would apply.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Village/Settlement Boundaries

1.3.17.2 The Council considers that the review of village boundaries is now an iterative process as most of the villages had "Limits of Development" boundaries approved by the Council for informal policy guidance in the early 1980's. These were reviewed for PRALP and finally adopted in 1990. Subsequent changes made in 1995 were relatively minor, principally involving, on the individual merits, the addition of garden areas within the boundaries. Whilst an objector considers that the method for defining settlement boundaries should be made explicit within the plan no such settlement boundary is actually defined as such within the DP, the only designation being "existing primarily residential areas".

1.3.17.3 The Council have not used distinct settlement boundary designations to define the limits of the principal settlements in the Borough and in my view the designation "existing primarily residential areas" causes some confusion about the intentions of the plan with regard to future development in that such a designation is related purely to Policies H9 to H17. Consequently although I accept that the boundary of the designation of "existing primarily residential areas" should be restricted to those areas that are clearly primarily residential in character and within the built up area of the settlement, it should be made clear within the plan that all of the residential curtilage of certain edge of settlement properties may not automatically be included within such a definition. Moreover it should also be made clear that committed or proposed housing sites are other specific designations that may well be outside such a designation. The Council could usefully give consideration to the use of a defined "Settlement Development Boundary" for the rural villages in the Borough which might encompass these additional designations.

1.3.17.4 However the definition "existing primarily residential areas" is referred to at Paras.9/76 and 9/77 of the DP and, in the case of Grimsargh, because there is no allocation of proposed housing site/s, clearly implies a settlement or village boundary, albeit one that would restrict future development. Because there are differences between the "Limits of Development" and "Settlement" boundaries set in 1981 and within the PRALP and the defined DP "existing primarily residential area" I consider it to be necessary for the supporting text of the plan to indicate how such differences have been arrived at. Consequently I consider that reference to the criteria which the Council have used to define such areas could well be included within Paras.9/76 and 9/77. Such explanation would, in my view, also usefully refer to how the Council have approached the definition of "existing primarily residential areas" in the Policy R8 rural settlements.

The Hermitage

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 84

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.3.17.5 The Hermitage is a substantial property standing within substantial and well wooded grounds where many of the trees are subject to TPO's. As such I agree with the Council that the physical appearance of the site is that of a mature wooded site and is not out of place in its designation as open countryside. Moreover, in that it is also part of the Tun Brook Valley woodland system all of which is in open countryside it is not an isolated woodland.

1.3.17.6 Whilst the objector demonstrated that the house has significance to the village of Grimsargh socially, economically and culturally there are in my view many such examples of large houses of significance to a local community which are located within the open countryside. As such I do not consider this to be good reason for its inclusion within the existing primarily residential area designation within the plan. The physical appearance of the site must be the determining factor in the definition of this designation. From observation at my site visit I confirm the Council's view that its character and appearance is quite distinct from the built-up character of the village on the north side of Elston Lane and Elston Green.

1.3.17.7 Elston Lane and Elston Green provide a clear edge to a compact and well defined built up area in this part of the village. The woodland on the site is an important landscape feature defining the edge of the settlement and is part of the open and rural landscape. As such I consider there is no case for extending the "existing primarily residential areas" designation onto the objection site. For the same reasons, nor do I consider the objection site to be a suitable candidate for inclusion, within any village boundary so defined, as a proposed housing site.

Mill Dam Cottage

1.3.17.8 I have concluded above that the character and appearance of land to the south of Elston Green is quite different to the built up character of the land to the north of this cul-de-sac. From observation at my site visit I am also in agreement with the view of a previous Inspector that, in that the curtilage of the objection site is mainly a large lawned area fringed by substantial trees, and notwithstanding that I accept that the garden area is used for ancillary residential purposes, the character of the site is determined by the large garden area. As such the whole site is more rural in character than the area to the north which is located within an area previously defined as a settlement boundary and now referred to as the built up area of the village.

1.3.17.9 In my opinion the Council is quite correct in its view that the character and appearance of this site has a greater affinity with the land to the south of woodland and open countryside than with the built-up area of Grimsargh village. Moreover as the major part of the site is open in character I consider that its designation within the DP as woodland is inappropriate. I consider therefore that PIC/02/R8 should be incorporated into the Proposals Map. In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account the previous planning history of the site but I consider that, in my considerations of the definition of the built-up area of the village, this must have less weight than the physical appearance of the property.

Tower House

1.3.17.10 Although I accept that the land has been utilised as garden area for a considerable number of years, this is not in itself good justification for including the site within the definition

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 85

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

of the built-up area of the village. From observation at my site visit although I recognise that the objection site is separated from the adjoining Mill Dam Cottage site by a change in level its garden area still has, nevertheless, due to the existing mature woodland trees on site, a close affinity with the adjacent Tun Brook valley woodland system all of which lies within the definition of open countryside.

Land to the rear of 193 to 201 Preston Road

1.3.17.11 Although I accept that the land has been, and still is being, utilised as garden area this is not in itself good justification for including the site within the definition of the built-up area of the village. From observation at my site visit it was clear to me that the site has an open character similar to the adjacent fields to the east which are located between the existing village development and the Grimsargh Reservoir embankment and as such should retain its designation as open countryside.

1.3.17.12 Whilst the Council indicated in response to this objection that "rounding off" could in principle be development outside but at the edge of development it seems to me that on its own this site would not accord with the relevant criteria. Given my conclusions at Section 1.2, concerning the potential for future development at Grimsargh, the Council might consider whether, taking into account the very strong definition given by the reservoir embankment in the vicinity of this site, that this site, taken together with the adjacent fields, might qualify as "rounding off" to be included within a revised settlement boundary for the village.

*************************

1.3.18 LAND OFF PRESTON ROAD

Explanatory Note: Objections are made in respect of the non-allocation of land for housing concerning two sites to the east of Grimsargh by Mr W J Briggs and Redrow Homes Ltd. The former and larger of these two sites extends along the eastern edge of the village and includes the site promoted by Redrow Homes Ltd. I deal with these two sites together as the issues involved are the same. My considerations and conclusions have to be read with my conclusions concerning the objections to Policies H2, R8 and RNEW. The objection made by Mr Hindle is mainly concerned with Policy RNEW and, in respect of the above sites, supports the Council's resistance to its allocation for housing.

Objections : 0/121/1/R8 REDROW HOMES LANCS LTD 0/121/2/R0 REDROW HOMES LANCS LTD 0/121/5/H2 REDROW HOMES LANCS LTD 0/165/1/R8 MR W J BRIGGS 0/165/2/R2 MR W J BRIGGS

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 86

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

OPC/700/1/Rnew MR D J HINDLE

PBC Response no: PBC/3 & 3b

ISSUES

1.3.18.1 Whether land to the east and south of Preston Road, Grimsargh should be allocated for housing and open space having regard to the need to ensure that any such development at Grimsargh is consistent with the "rounding off" of the village and not so significant as to be inappropriate in form.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

1.3.18.2 Apart from its view that Preston can meet its strategic planning objectives without allocating land at Grimsargh, it is contended by the Council that the recent 176 dwelling approvals satisfies the terms of LSP Policy 8 and should be given time to work through locally so that proper assessment can be made of their impact on local schools and community facilities. I have dealt with these matters above in connection with the objections to Policies R8 and RNEW (Section 1.2).

1.3.18.3 The Council accepted at the inquiry that the Redrow Homes Ltd site accords with the criteria set out in the Glossary of the LSP for the definition of "rounding off" development. However the larger site, (Mr W J Briggs) does not, from my own calculations, so accord with this definition in that considerably less than two thirds of its perimeter is built up with consolidated development. Consequently development of the larger site does not comply with the terms of LSP Policy 8. As such I do not consider its suggested allocation to be justified notwithstanding the objector's view that a bypass to Grimsargh could be created to the east of Grimsargh if an allocation of housing was to be made on this site.

1.3.18.4 With regard to the Redrow Homes site, apart from the fact that it is covered by the landscape policies of the plan, the Council has not adduced any evidence of an environmental nature to contest its suitability for allocation. In this respect it is clear that its designation as countryside (Policy R2) and as within an area of Rural Valley Landscape (Policy R7) are general designations that apply to large areas of countryside. Its landscape designation under Policy R7 is not a national designation and it is significant that Policy 25 of the LSP identifies all areas of the County, outside urban areas, as lying within one of ten Landscape Character Tracts. Policy 25 of the LSP provides guidance on what is important in each landscape and how it should be conserved. LSP Policy 25(vi)(a)indicates: "In the Rural Valleys, of the distinctive features within this tract, priority will be given: to the conservation of special features: rivers and ancient woodland and species rich grasslands; and to the renewal and enhancement of the landscape by: woodland, hedgerow and hedgerow tree management.". The Council has not adduced any specific evidence to show that any such landscape would be adversely affected by the allocation of the objection site.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 87

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

1.3.18.5 The Council accept that the site satisfies the LSP definition of "rounding off" and from observation at my site visit it was evident to me that the site is generally enclosed by village development and trees located along the Tun Brook Valley. As such, as long as care is taken to protect the woodland edge from development, I consider the site could be considered for development for housing and open space without causing environmental harm to locality and without adversely affecting the discrete identity of Grimsargh. Indeed the illustrative proposals submitted by the developer indicate to me that such protection to the woodland edge is a realistic possibility and that public open space proposals could provide a pleasant community and landscape focus for the village in the vicinity of the village hall. 1.3.18.6 In reaching this conclusion I have given little weight to the fact that the site was originally part of an area allocated to meet housing development needs within the Central Lancashire New Town as this area was excluded from the New Town in 1984. Because of the time that has elapsed since 1984 and the many subsequent changes in planning policy I do not consider there to be any relevance in such an historical allocation to the current situation at Grimsargh.

*************************

1.3.19 LAND ON THE WESTERN EDGE OF GRIMSARGH

Objections: O/4/1/R8 HAIGHTON GREEN ESTATES O/4/2/RNEW HAIGHTON GREEN ESTATES

PBC Response no: PBC/3

ISSUES:

1.3.19.1 Whether 4.8ha of land to the west of Preston Road, Grimsargh should be allocated for a mixed use development of not more than 100 dwellings as part of a retirement complex comprising Doctor's surgery, pharmacy, cottage hospital and retirement/affordable homes having regard to: the requirement for such facilities in Grimsargh; and the need to ensure that any such development at Grimsargh is consistent with the "rounding off" of the village and not so significant as to be inappropriate in form.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.3.19.2 Apart from its view that Preston can meet its strategic planning objectives without allocating land at Grimsargh, it is contended by the Council that the recent 176 dwelling approvals satisfies the terms of LSP Policy 8 and should be given time to work through locally so that proper assessment can be made of their impact on local schools and community facilities. I

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 88

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

have dealt with these matters above in connection with the objections to Policies R8 and RNEW (Section 1.2).

1.3.19.3 The Council consider that the fact that the proposal is to meet the particular needs of the elderly is insufficient reason to override the policy objections against this particular site. It is considered that there are other sites in the Borough more suited to this type of development which better conform to development plan strategy and settlement hierarchy. The Whittingham Hospital Site is put forward by the Council as such an example. Moreover, whilst the proposals are for a mixed development, it was accepted that the provision of the medical facilities are dependent to a considerable extent on the provision of housing on the site, albeit that such housing is represented by a large proportion of sheltered housing. This indicates to me that the proposals are largely housing led.

1.3.19.4 Whilst the objector put forward evidence of need for this type of medical and sheltered housing facilities, this evidence is only of a generalised nature and does not specifically relate to any explicit proposals for Grimsargh having been made by the North West Lancashire Health Authority (NWLHA). Whilst there is no medical manpower in Grimsargh, such evidence of need relates to proposals which are only at the public consultation stage of development and are not at such an advanced stage to provide sufficient justification to override planning policy for the open countryside.

1.3.19.5 I have concluded above that some development at Grimsargh is appropriate and that it is appropriate to consider individual sites on their own merits against the criteria set out in the LSP for "rounding off". However, notwithstanding that I consider some "rounding off" is appropriate at Grimsargh I do not consider the objection site conforms sufficiently to the criteria for it to be regarded as being consistent with the definition in the LSP. From observation at my site visit I consider that Grimsargh House does not form part of the consolidated development of the village in that it is a community use standing in its own grounds, with a recreation ground to the north and open countryside to the south.

1.3.19.6 This being the case I consider that the proportion of the perimeter of the objection site is, as the Council has calculated, about 42%, rather than the 60% required by the definition of "rounding off" in the LSP. The boundary of the objection site to the west has no clearly defined boundaries and would be highly visible when viewed from the lanes and footpaths associated with the scattered settlement at Cow Hill. As such, and notwithstanding that the eastern boundary of the site is close to the existing village centre and the site would be a suitable location for the elderly, I do not consider that the site could be easily absorbed into the landscape and would represent an unwarranted incursion in open countryside.

*************************

1.3.20 GENERAL SUMMARY - GRIMSARGH

1.3.15.7 I have previously concluded that the allocation of sites to accommodate upto 200 dwellings at Grimsargh would not represent an overly significant expansion of the village. From my consideration of the site specific objections made I have concluded that such a level of

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 89

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

development can be accommodated without causing environmental harm to the locality and without affecting the discrete identity of the village. To accommodate such development I have concluded that the Council should give consideration to defining a Settlement Development Boundary to include the Preston Road (South) site and land to the north of Preston Road up to the Reservoir.

RECOMMENDATIONS: GRIMSARGH

I recommend that the plan be modified such that:

(REC.1.24) provision be made at Grimsargh, within an area to be defined on the Proposals Map, for the allocation of up to 200 new dwellings, and that a new policy be included within the plan under POLICY RNEW(3) to read: "Provision is made within the plan to ensure that sufficient land is allocated at Grimsargh to accommodate up to 200 new dwellings within the plan period over and above existing committments as at November 1997";

(REC.1.25) land off Preston Road specified by Redrow Homes Ltd be allocated within the plan for housing under Policy H2:

(REC.1.26) with regard to the definition of reference to the designation of "existing primarily residential areas" that Paras.9/76 and 9/77 of the supporting text be amended to make reference to the criteria which the Council have used to define such areas and to make clear how the Council have approached its definition in the rural settlements;

(REC.1.27) the Council give consideration, as far as Policy R8 settlements are concerned, to indicating on the Proposals Map a specific notation for Settlement Development Boundaries; and that whilst,

(REC.1.28) no modification be made to the plan in response to the objections made concerning land at "The Hermitage", "Mill Dam Cottage", "Tower House", 193 to 201 Preston Road and land on the western edge of Grimsargh; that

(REC.1.29) the Council give consideration to including the land to the rear of 193 to 201 Preston Road within the settlement boundary but then only in association with a larger extension of the settlement boundary between the Preston Road and the Reservoir.

CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 90

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 2 - DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE

Explanatory Note:

POLICY R8 - RURAL VILLAGES:

Objections to Policy R8 are mainly dealt with under "The Development Strategy of the Plan" at Chapter 1 of this report. There are however a few site specific objections to the non inclusion of sites within the settlements as defined on the Proposals Map. I deal with these within this Chapter.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 94

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.1 PARAGRAPH 4/4

Objection : O/71/27/RX NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST

PBC Response no. : PBC/99

ISSUES:

2.1.1 Whether the second objective, Para.4/4, is inconsistent with national policy and the LSP.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.1.2 The DP sets out four objectives for its countryside policies, the second of these is objected to in that it is felt to be inconsistent with national and LSP policy. This objective states: "To protect agricultural land within the Borough once the Local Plan's development allocations have been taken into account." It is suggested that this objective should be reworded as follows: "To protect the open countryside within the Borough consistent with satisfying the Borough's development requirements".

2.1.3 I am in agreement with the objector. PPG7 gives no blanket protection to agricultural land, as such, protection is reserved only for the best and most versatile land defined as Grades 1,2 and 3a. Moreover, similarly to national policy, LSP Policy 16 makes it quite clear, in re- iterating this level of protection, that development of lower grade land will be resisted only where particular agricultural practices contribute to the quality of the environment in some special way.

2.1.4 The rewording suggested by the objector makes it clear that the important planning interest is to protect the open countryside for its own sake rather than the protection of agricultural land of all qualities. Furthermore the development of open land may be necessary, not only to meet specific housing and employment requirements but also to comply with other policies of the development plan. Consequently I do not accept the Council's view that such wording could be interpreted with greater latitude. In my view the wording suggested is far less ambiguous, concerning the need to protect the open countryside, than the stated objective in the DP.

RECOMMENDATION

(REC.2.1) I recommend that the plan be modified by the rewording of the second of the four objectives set out in paragraph 4/4 as follows: "To protect the open countryside within the Borough consistent with satisfying the Borough's development requirements".

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 95

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.2 GREEN BELT:

2.2.1 POLICY R1 - GENERAL

Objections : O/39/12/R1a NORTH WEST TOURIST BOARD O/39/15/R1c4 NORTH WEST TOURIST BOARD O/128/1/R1a LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (CW) O/70/1/R1 GONW O/129/1/R1 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION

PBC Response no. : PBC/88

ISSUES:

2.2.1.1 Whether:

(i) Policy R1 should be amended to reflect the text of the LSP;

(ii) clauses (a) and (d) are unduly rigid and fail to enable all material considerations to be taken into account;

(iii) tourism should be identified within the policy as an appropriate use in the Green Belt;

(iv) criterion (iv) should be deleted because it may result in dereliction.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

2.2.1.2 PIC/01/R1 proposes the deletion of clauses a) and b) of Policy R1 and their replacement by wording which reflects LSP Policy 4 "Development in Green Belts". This reflects national advice given in PPG2 and as such the plan should be modified in accordance with the proposed change.

Issue (ii)

2.2.1.3 Having regard to the fact that I have accepted the need for Policy R1 to be amended, as per PIC/01/R1, to accord with both Government advice and the LSP, I consider that the amendment of clauses a) and d) would bring the policy out of conformity with the LSP. Para.3.1 of PPG2 makes it clear that "within the Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development" and, as such, planning permission will not be given except in very special circumstances. It is therefore for the applicant to show that the very special circumstances relating to a proposal outweigh any harm that the development may cause to the Green Belt.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 96

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.2.1.4 Although the objector refers to the fact that the Green Belt is only identified on Inset 1 of the Proposals Map, Preston's Green Belt is confined to the Ribble escarpment which lies within the area of Inset 1.

Issue (iii)

2.2.1.5 Tourism related development is not always appropriate in the Green Belt in that it embraces a wide range of activities and types of development, including such large scale facilities as hotels, as well as small scale facilities such as camping barns. Consequently tourism cannot be regarded as a single or distinct category of land use. This being the case, even though some small scale tourism proposals may be appropriate, such an imprecise definition of a land use is not appropriate for inclusion within a policy R1.

Issue (iv)

2.2.1.6 Criterion (iv) is consistent with the advice given in Para.3.8(c) of PPG2 and with Policy 4(b) of the LSP. In allowing the re-use of existing buildings the aim is that it will help to avoid them becoming vacant and prone to vandalism and dereliction. Consequently I do not consider that there is any justification to delete this criterion.

***************************

2.2.2 LAND AT FISHWICK GOLF COURSE

Objection: O/70/1/R1 GONW

PBC Response: PBC/88

ISSUES

2.2.2.1 Whether there are exceptional circumstances which justify a change to the Green Belt boundary, to include within it land at the northern part of the Fishwick Golf Course, south of Ribbleton.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.2.2.2 Hitherto, Preston's Green Belt has been defined solely by the PRALP and the land in question lies just to the north of the PRALP boundary within the PESLP. Consequently in that the PESLP does not include a Green Belt policy it was excluded simply because it is situated on

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 97

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

the wrong side of a local plan boundary. In my view such a situation amounts to exceptional circumstances. The arbitrary delineation of local plan boundaries should not influence the inclusion or otherwise of land in the Green Belt. The Council's proposals therefore serve to rectify a situation which would not normally have occurred. This situation was only brought to light by a review of the Proposals Map designations along the urban fringe from Church Avenue to Gaythorne Avenue prompted by representations received at the public consultation stage.

2.2.2.3 The Council, at that time, felt that the Green Belt should be extended to include the area identified on the Proposals Map. It was considered that the area was well related to the adjacent Green Belt to the south. The Proposals Map was amended accordingly at the deposit stage. At the deposit stage of the plan, objection was made by Balmoral Developments, under O/182/4/R1, due to the objectors wish to secure a residential designation of the objection site. The objection related to the inclusion of the part of the area which formed an area of greenspace off Butterlands.

2.2.2.4 Following the Council's decision to grant planning permission on this site the objection was unconditionally withdrawn. In reaching its decision the Council reconsidered this site and came to the view that it was not appropriate to include it within the Green Belt in that the site is screened from the adjacent area of Green Belt by development and trees. Consequently it is now considered by the Council that the Proposals Map should be amended to reflect the planning application, with the southern part of the site being shown as a "housing commitment" and the northern part being identified as public open space under Policy G1.

2.2.2.5 From observation at my site visits, I confirm the Council's view concerning the relationship of the area to the adjacent Green Belt and concur with its proposals set out on Plan 2 PBC/88. However, I consider that the exceptional circumstances that have led to the alteration of the Green Belt boundary, as well as the subsequent changes made by the Council, should be clearly set out within the supporting text for Policy R1. To this end, I consider that Plan 1- PBC/88 as amended by Plan 2-PBC/88 should be included within the plan within Chapter 16 under Site Specific matters, and that the supporting text explain the circumstances that have led to the Councils changed approach to the area.

***************************

2.2.3 AREAS TO THE NORTH-EAST OF PRESTON (INCLUDING LAND BETWEEN FERNYHALGH BRIDGE & PIGOT HOUSE)

Objection: O/98/1/R1 GRIMSARGH PARISH COUNCIL O/153/12/R1 PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH O/124/8/R1 HAIGHTON PARISH COUNCIL AND HAIGHTON AND GRIMSARGH

PBC Response nos. :PBC/3 & 88

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 98

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

ISSUES:

2.2.3.1 Whether alterations should be made to the Green Belt to include, within its designated area, additional land to the north east of Preston.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.2.3.2 Additions to or deletions from the general extent of the Green Belt can only be considered in the context of preparing a structure plan unless there are exceptional circumstances. The recently adopted LSP does not identify Green Belt to the north of Preston and there are no exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the local plan making such an extensive revision of the Green Belt.

***************************

RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY R1

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.2.2) by the acceptance of PIC/01/R1 and the consequential renumbering of the clauses within the Policy;

(REC.2.3) such that the exceptional circumstances that have led to the alteration of the Green Belt boundary by the Council should be clearly set out within the supporting text for Policy R1;

(REC.2.4) such that Plan 1-PBC/88 as amended by Plan 2-PBC/88 should be included within the plan within Chapter 16; and

(REC.2.5) that the reasoned justification for Chapter 16 explain the circumstances which have led to the Councils changed approach to the area. but that no other modification be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 99

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.3 OPEN COUNTRYSIDE OUTSIDE GREEN BELT

Explanatory Note: Objections to Policy R2 fall into two categories: those which are concerned with the general principle of the policy, and; those which are concerned about its application to specific sites. Consequently I consider the general objections first followed by those that are site specific which have not been dealt with elsewhere under my considerations of Policy R8 (Rural Villages) below or in connection with development at Goosnargh/Whittingham, Broughton or Grimsargh at Section 1.3.

***************************

2.3.1 POLICY R2 - GENERAL

Objections : O/157/6/R2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (CW) O/71/28/R2 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/129/2/R2 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION O/176/2/R2 PETER HIGHAM AND CO O/164/1/R2a P WILSON AND COMPANY (CW) O/39/13/R2a NORTH WEST TOURIST BOARD

OPC/128/33/R2 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

PBC Response no. :PBC/90

ISSUES:

2.3.1.1 Whether:

(i) the policy is unnecessary in that it duplicates the function of Policy 1 of the LSP;

(ii) the policy is unduly severe and does not allow all other material considerations to be taken into account;

(iii) criterion (a) is inconsistent with both national and structure plan policies;

(iv) criteria (b) and (c) are necessary;

(v) criteria (c)(i-iii) would be better included in Policy R10;

(vi) tourism should be identified within the policy as an appropriate use in the open countryside;

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 100

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(vii) with regard to OPC/128/33/R2, criterion (iii) does not fully comply with part (e) of Policy 1 of the LSP.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

2.3.1.2 Whilst Policy R2 is closely aligned with Policy 1 of the LSP, it is, nevertheless, still a development control policy concerned with the control of those areas designated as open countryside and defined on the Proposals Map. As such it is properly included in a local plan.

Issue (ii)

2.3.1.3 It is not necessary for local plan policies to be expressed in terms that explicitly allow all material considerations to be taken into account. Section 54A of the TCPA 1990 requires that applications for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Consequently, in determining planning applications, the decision maker must always take into account relevant material considerations. The introduction of the word "unacceptable" as a test of acceptability would in my view result in ambiguity and more uncertainty in the determination of planning applications.

Issue (iii)

2.3.1.4 It is accepted by the Council that the "test of essentiality" is not found within LSP Policy 1, nor within national policy expressed in PPG7 other than within policy related to agricultural workers dwellings. Consequently the word "essential" should be removed from the Policy.

Issue (iv)

2.3.1.5 Whilst it asserted that criteria (b) and (c) are simply cross-references, I consider that it is essential for Policy R2 to provide comprehensive guidance to development within the open countryside. Infilling and conversion of rural buildings are essential elements of such development and cross reference to both these types of development provides clarity.

Issue (v)

2.3.1.6 The Council point out that the intent of the policy is that criteria (i)-(iii) apply to all proposals in the open countryside and not just to criteria (c). It is suggested therefore that an appropriate phrase is inserted between criteria (c) and (i). Such an amendment illustrates the need for these criteria, which are common to clauses (a) (b) and (c), to be included within this policy for the sake of clarity,.

Issue (vi)

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 101

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.3.1.7 Tourism related development may not always be appropriate in the open countryside in that such development embraces a wide range of activities and type of development having differing scales and environmental impacts. As such I do not consider that any modification to the policy is required in relation to this objection.

Issue (vii)

2.3.1.8 The Council accepts the LCC's proposed form of words for criterion (iii) although it is considered that this should make specific reference to the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as this is the only such area within the Borough. Such an amendment is consistent with part (e) of LSP Policy 1.

***************************

2.3.2 BARTON VILLAGE HALL

Explanatory Note: My considerations and conclusions on this objection should be read together with my conclusions and recommendations regarding village boundaries (Section 1.3). Although the objector considers, in objection to PIC/02/R2, that the farm buildings to the south-east should be included within the built-up area, these buildings did not form part of the original objection. As such this matter is not the subject of a duly made objection.

Objection : O/122/1/R2 MR C SANDHAM OPC/122/1/R2 MR C SANDHAM

PBC Response no. : PBC/90

ISSUES:

2.3.2.1 Whether land adjoining the Barton Village Hall should be included within the plan as "existing primarily residential area".

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.3.2.2 The Council considers that the identification of the objection site as open countryside is a reflection of how the boundary between the deposit draft Proposals Map and Inset 1 was defined. Inset 1 of the Proposals Map includes most of Barton, but excludes the objection site which by default is on the main Proposals Map. In response to the objection it was proposed under PIC/02/R2 to identify the village hall and adjacent area as public open space (Policy G1). In the light of the argument put forward by the objector that the village hall and the land to the south is

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 102

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

developed, and therefore is not greenspace, the Council has given the matter further consideration.

2.3.2.3 The Council now proposes, to be consistent with the manner in which similar facilities have been dealt with in the urban area, that it is appropriate to designate the village hall and car park as "existing primarily residential area". In that the tennis court, bowling green, and adjacent playing field are not available for use by the general public they should be included under the designation of private recreational greenspace under Policy G3. I am satisfied, from observation at my site visit, that such proposals represent appropriate designations for the objection site.

***************************

2.3.3 LAND OFF CUMERAGH & HALFPENNY LANE, WHITTINGHAM

Explanatory Note: The Council point out that although the objector seeks to extend this objection to cover a second separate site south of Cumerargh Lane, this land was not referred to in the original objection and, as such, the objection, as far as this part of it is concerned, is not duly made. Consequently I have not dealt with that part of the objection. My considerations and conclusions on this objection site have to be read in conjunction with my conclusions concerning the Development Strategy of the plan (Section 1.1).

Objection : O/149/1/R2 TRUSTEES OF THE RIDING ESTATE

PBC Response no. : PBC/90

ISSUES:

2.3.3.1 Whether land at Cumeragh Lane/Halfpenny Lane, Whittingham, should be included under Policy H2 as a housing allocation having regard to its relationship to the existing settlement pattern.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.3.3.2 The objector points to the fact that the LSP provides for the limited expansion of Longridge in a westerly direction which is considered to be the only possible direction in which the settlement could be expanded. Longridge, however, is outside the plan boundary and from observation at my site visit it was clear to me that the site is not physically part of the defined settlement and, notwithstanding my conclusions concerning the definition of rounding off as used in Ribble Valley (Section 1.3.), cannot satisfy the LSP definition of "rounding off".

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 103

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.3.3.3 Moreover, although the objector refers to the need to allow for the natural and logical expansion of the adjoining settlement of Longridge, there is no significant evidence before me which suggests that this is the case. I have seen no evidence that Ribble Valley Borough Council are promoting such housing development, nor does the LSP refer to such a situation.

***************************

2.3.4 NEW HOUSE FARM, LEA

Objection : O/186/1/R2 TRUSTEES OF DE HOGHTON ESTATE GIBRALTAR SETTLEMENT

PBC Response no. : PBC/90

ISSUES:

2.3.4.1 Whether land to the west of Lea Road and to the north of Savick Brook should be allocated for commercial and residential development to enable a contribution to be made towards the viability and success of the proposed "Ribble Link" canalization of Savick Brook.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.3.4.2 The objectors do not seek to change the designation of the site on the grounds of housing land availability but solely on the basis that it would contribute towards the viability and success of the proposed Navigation link. Clearly the objectors proposal is intended to be enabling development.

2.3.4.3 There is no statutory basis for this kind of enabling development and the proposed commercial and housing development would not be directly related in land use terms to the "Ribble Link". It would not therefore satisfy the tests set out in Circular 1/97 regarding planning obligations.

***************************

RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY R2

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.2.6) by the rewording of Policy R2 to read as follows:

"Development in the open countryside, outside the Green Belt, will be permitted where:

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 104

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(A) It forms a requirement for agriculture, forestry or other uses appropriate to a rural area including uses which help to diversify the rural economy; or

(B) It comprises infilling between existing buildings in accordance with Policy R9: or

Development as in (A) (B) or (C) above will be subject to the following provisos:

(i) It does not involve works to the highway which are incompatible with the rural character of the area; and

(ii) the development is in accordance with landscape policy R7 and is compatible with nature conservation; and

(iii) within the Forest of Bowland AONB, development in the open countryside will be subject to the additional requirement that it will contribute to the conservation of the natural beauty of the area.".

(REC.2.7) such that the Proposals Map be amended to include the designations as shown on Plan 1 PBC/90;

(REC.2.8) such that Proposal Map Inset 1 be amended to include the whole of Barton Village. but that no other modification be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 105

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.4 POLICY R3 - AGRICULTURAL LAND

Objections : O/129/3/R3 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION O/124/7/R3 HAIGHTON PARISH COUNCIL AND HAIGHTON AND GRIMSARGH O/164/2/R3 P WILSON AND COMPANY O/71/29/R3 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH-WEST

PBC Response nos. : PBC/3 & 91

ISSUES:

2.4.1 Whether:

(i) Policy R3 is inconsistent with both National and LSP Policy;

(ii) Policy R3 is inflexible;

(iii) Policies 3a and 3b are too weak;

(iv) the penultimate paragraph is too vague.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.4.2 The wording of the policy is taken directly from the LSP Policy 16 which has been shaped in accordance with Government Guidance on agricultural land set out in PPG7 Annex B. As such, I consider that the objections made are unfounded. The policy does not necessarily preclude any development of agricultural land and the protection of Class 3b and lower land is endorsed in para.2.19 of PPG7. The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) map for Preston does not differentiate between grades 3a and 3b and in cases where evaluation of an individual site is required a re-survey needs to be made to obtain the definitive grade. It is not necessary to spatially constrain the application of the policy by specific reference to the Forest of Bowland area, as this would lead to unnecessary ambiguity.

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.2.9) I recommend that no modification be made to the plan in response to these objections.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 106

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.5 POLICY R4 - DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURE:

Explanatory Note: The NFU whilst generally supportive of the policy objects to the implication, in Para.4/24 of the supporting text, that diversification is only appropriate where the viability of the farm is under threat. The Council accepts that advice in PPG7 does not limit diversification on farms to those uses that must be justified as supplementing farm viability and undertakes to amend the supporting text accordingly.

Objections : O/129/4/R4 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION O/157/5/R4 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (CW) O/2/1/R4 NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

PBC Response no. : PBC/92

ISSUES:

2.5.1 Whether the policy seeks to limit diversification proposals to those related to an existing agricultural business and, as such, should be broadened to reflect all forms of rural diversification.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.5.2 Para.3.4 PPG7 advises That: "development plans should state the criteria to be applied to planning applications for farm based diversification". Policy R4 fulfils this function and Policy R2, in conjunction with other relevant local plan policies, provides adequate guidance for rural diversification proposals in general.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

(REC.2.10) I recommend that no modification be made to the plan in response to the objections to Policy R4 but that the supporting text be amended to ensure that it no longer infers that diversification proposals must be related to farm viability.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 107

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.6 POLICY R5 - NATURE CONSERVATION INTERNATIONALLY AND NATIONALLY IMPORTANT SITES

Explanatory Note: A number of cartographic errors are acknowledged by the Council in the drafting of the boundaries of Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI on the Proposals Map. It is further acknowledged by the Council that the International status of the Ribble Estuary should be recognised in the supporting text.

Objections : O/129/5/R5 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION O/155/1/R5 RSPB O/156/1/R5 LANCASHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST O/158/1/R5a ENGLISH NATURE O/158/3/R5 ENGLISH NATURE (CW) O/158/4/R5b ENGLISH NATURE (CW) O/158/2/R5b ENGLISH NATURE (CW)

OPC/128/35/R5 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL OPC/158/28/R5 ENGLISH NATURE

PBC Response no. : PBC/93

ISSUES:

2.6.1 Whether Policy R5 is unduly rigid and amounts to a presumption against development, and whether reference should be made in the plan of the requirement for mitigation measures where development is justified in terms of policy.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.6.2 The policy clearly allows for development which "does not destroy or damage". In my view this correctly takes into account the significance of the designations of the areas concerned, whilst at the same time allowing for development as long as the criteria are met. 2.6.3 It is acknowledged by the Council that additional supporting text is needed to offer guidance on the requirement to provide mitigating measures where development is justified.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.2.11) the incorporation of PIC/01/R5 and the amendment of the boundary of Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI as shown on Plan 1 PBC/93.

(REC.2.12) the amendment to the supporting text of Policy R5 to ensure that recognition is made of the full national and international status of Ribble Estuary and that additional

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 108

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

supporting text is included to offer guidance on the requirement to provide mitigating measures where development is justified.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 109

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.7 POLICY R6 - NATURE CONSERVATION - Locally Important Sites:

Explanatory Note: The Council propose under PIC/01/R6 to delete Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNC's) from the policy. This is objected to by LCC. The errors pointed to by objectors concerning the Proposals Map are accepted by the Council and will be rectified.

Objections : O/71/30/R6 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/158/5/R6 ENGLISH NATURE O/156/2/R6 LANCASHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST O/129/6/R6 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION O/183/2/R6 LARA MRDO O/164/7/R6a P WILSON AND COMPANY O/139/6/R6 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS (CW)

OPC/128/36/R6 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

PBC Response no.: PBC/94

ISSUES:

2.7.1 Whether protection under Policy R6 should be accorded only to Regionally Important Geological Sites and Biological Heritage Sites and whether the policy is too restrictive.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.7.2 Whilst the NHS Executive does not object to the principle that locally important nature conservation sites should be given some form of protection from development, it is considered such protection should be accorded only to Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS) and Biological Heritage Sites (BHS). Given: that Ancient Woodlands are by definition BHS's; that the Council has no current list of LNC's; and that wildlife corridors will frequently be of little intrinsic nature conservation value, I consider that the rewording of Policy R6 suggested by the NHS Executive has some merit as long as: an additional policy on wildlife corridors is added and; a more comprehensive explanation of the BHS designation is included within the supporting text. With regard to Ancient Woodlands I consider that these could be indicated on the Proposals Map as a sub-designation of BHS's as Ancient Woodlands e.g BHS"A" without the need for separate designation within the policy.

2.7.3 Given also, in response to the objection by LCC, that the Council intend to give further consideration to the protection of LNC's when the plan is next reviewed, I am satisfied that clause (b) of the policy, or that suggested by the NHS, would afford adequate and interim protection to those sites of local conservation value which do not meet the BHS criteria. Although I accept the view of the Council that wildlife corridors are a key concept in nature conservation, in that they provide links between open countryside and urban greenspace which allow the movement and colonisation of wildlife, it is also accepted by the Council that individual corridors may not satisfy BHS criteria. Consequently I consider that the protection of these corridors should be

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 110

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

approached by the inclusion within the plan of a separate policy. To this end I consider the policy included in the recently adopted Wigan Unitary Development Plan provides a suitable model.

2.7.4 Although the British Wind Energy Association considers the policy fails to allow all material considerations to be taken into account it is not necessary for the policy to be expressed in such terms. The suggested policy wording put forward by the objector would result in uncertainty concerning the weight to be attached to nature conservation interests and would be in conflict, both with the advice in para.24 of PPG9 and with the wording of LSP Policy 19.

2.7.5 Concern is expressed by LARA MRDO that the Council should support proposals for development where a management agreement exists which will allow "an activity(ies) to take place sustainably in co-existence with nature conservation". It is acknowledged by the Council that such management agreements could be sought by means of planning obligations and constitute an adequate safeguard. As such, reference to this should be included in the supporting text.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.2.13) the deletion and replacement of Policy R6 by the following:

"Policy R6

(a) Development will not be permitted which is likely to destroy or damage Biological Heritage Sites and Regionally Important Geological Sites (as shown on the Proposals Map)

(b) Development will be permitted on other sites where there are features of habitat or natural history value including mature trees, woodland, established hedgerows and water features, provided that these features substantially retained. Where retention of such features is not practical, planning permission will be granted where proposals include adequate replacement features to compensate for those lost.";

(REC.2.14) the inclusion of a new policy headed "Wildlife Corridors" to read:

"The Borough's wildlife corridor network will be protected from unnecessary development which would adversely affect it. New development within or near to wildlife corridors will be expected to incorporate features to facilitate the movement of wildlife, including the creation of new links within the network where appropriate.";

(REC.2.15) the deletion of Appendix 4;

(REC.2.16) the inclusion within the supporting text of:

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 111

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(i) a more comprehensive explanation of the BHS system;

(ii) an explanation of the Ancient Woodlands definition on the Proposals Map;

(iii) reference to the use of planning obligations to secure the compensatory provision of replacement nature conservation features and also appropriate management agreements.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 112

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.8 LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENT AND CONSERVATION:

2.8.1 POLICY R7 - GENERAL

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/R7 addresses objections by LCC and GONW in respect of Policies R7a R7b & R7b(i) and these objections are Conditionally Withdrawn. No objections are made to the Proposed Change and I consider that it satisfactorily addresses the objections.

Objections : O/129/7/R7 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION O/70/2/R7 GONW (CW) O/128/2/R7a LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (CW) O/128/3/R7b LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (CW) O/128/4/R7bii LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

PBC Response no. : PBC/95

ISSUES

2.8.1.1 Whether Policy R7 is not a land use policy, containing insufficient criteria against which the acceptability of development proposals affecting the listed features within the policy can be judged, and whether the wording of Para.(b)(ii) of Policy R7 adequately reflects the provisions of LSP Policy 25.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.8.1.2 The Council acknowledge, in response to the objection by LCC, that there should be a commitment in the plan to the need to enhance the urban and urban fringe landscape. It is further accepted that this involves more than the protection of existing greenspace networks and should also concern the creation of new networks where possible. It is accepted therefore that the plan should more closely reflect the wording of the LSP.

2.8.1.3 In response to the objection made by the British Wind Energy Association the Council proposes to expand the supporting text to explain how the policy will be implemented through the development control process, through countryside management and other joint working with statutory and voluntary agencies. The aim of the policy is to provide guidance on what features are important in determining the character of each landscape tract and it is not intended that these features should always be protected. I consider therefore that the course of action suggested by the Council will help to ensure that the plan pays due regard to the need to ensure that new development, if acceptable in principle, will respect or enhance the distinctive character of the land.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 113

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

*******************************

2.8.2 LAND ADJACENT TO CHURCH OF ST ANDREW AND BLESSED GEORGE HAYCOCK, COTTAM

Explanatory Note: In seeking to have the objection site included within the urban area the objector should more appropriately have objected to Policy R2. Policy R7 is only concerned with the enhancement of landscape character and does not in itself prevent development in the countryside. I have therefore treated this objection as being against the designation of the area as open countryside.

Objection : O/91/1/R7 LANCASTER ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESAN TRUSTEES

PBC Response no. : PBC/95

ISSUES

2.8.2.1 Whether the former school site at Sandy Lane/Hoyles Lane, Cottam should be included within the urban area and made available for housing development.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.8.2.2 Whilst the objector comments that the designation of the site in the PRALP is as unallocated land within the Cottam village envelope, it is not correct to assume that there is "a reasonable expectation that this site could be developed for housing". Under the policies of the PRALP, Policy DS2 of that plan restricts development within the settlement of Cottam to that defined as either "infilling" or "small scale redevelopment", redevelopment being defined as "normally involving not more than a single curtilage within a built up frontage at a scale appropriate to its surroundings". From observation at my site visit I consider the Council to be quite correct in its view that development on the objection site would not satisfy this definition. The objection site consists of more than a single curtilage and does not lie within a built-up frontage.

2.8.2.3 This being the case, the designation of the site has to be considered in relation to the existing situation at Cottam. Cottam is no longer defined as a separate identified settlement because of the extent of New Town Housing development which has taken place to the south of Hoyles Lane. Given this situation, and the fact that the objection site is located to the north of Hoyles Lane where no major developments have taken place or were intended even as part of the PRALP, I consider the pleasant open character of the objection site and its surroundings to the north and north west clearly place the site within the open countryside. Moreover, in terms of the designations used in the DP, this site clearly does not satisfy the designation as "existing primarily residential area", the only designation used within the plan to delineate settlement

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 114

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

boundary. In this respect my comments at Section 1.3 concerning village/settlement boundaries have also to be taken into account.

2.8.2,4 Whilst it is argued that the development of the proposed equestrian centre at Maxy House, to the north of the objection site, will change the character of the area, this represents an appropriate form of development within the open countryside. It provides no justification for altering the designation of the objection site as both open countryside or as Lowland fringe Farmland:Bowland Fringes Landscape Character Tract.

*******************************

RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY R7

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.2.17) the incorporation of PIC/O1/R7;

(REC.2.18) the amendment of Clause (b)(ii) of Policy R7 such that the "protection" be replaced by the word "deployment".

(REC.2.19) the expansion of the supporting text to explain how the policy will be implemented. but that no other modification be made to the plan in respect of the above objections.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 115

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.9 POLICY R8 - RURAL VILLAGES

Explanatory Note: Objections to Policy R8 are mainly dealt with under "The Development Strategy of the Plan" at Chapter 1 of this report.

*******************************

2.9.1 LAND OFF WOODPLUMPTON ROAD, WOODPLUMPTON (POLICY R8)

Explanatory Note: My conclusions on this objection have to be read with my considerations and conclusions concerning Village/Settlement Boundaries which I dealt with at Section 1.3. I have within that section previously concluded that the Council might usefully give consideration to the use of a defined "Settlement Development Boundary" for the rural villages in the Borough.

Objection : O/180/1/R8 MESSRS AINSCOUGH AND PUNSHON

PBC Response no. : PBC/5

ISSUES:

2.9.1.1 Whether the objection site should be included as part of the "primarily residential area" of Woodplumpton and within an area defined as being suitable for development as low density housing.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.9.1.2 Although the Council refer to the term "village envelope" no such definition is included on the Proposals Map for Woodplumpton or any other Policy R8 settlement. Similarly, although Policy R8 refers to "built-up areas as defined on the Proposals Map" no such identification is specifically referred to in the notation. Moreover, areas of residential curtilage have been excluded from "existing primarily residential area" designation that are considered to lie within the open countryside. This situation causes considerable confusion throughout the plan and requires rectification by the definition of a "Settlement Development Boundary" which clearly defines the limits of the built up area. This may or may not include all the defined primarily residential area. The use of the definition as "existing primarily residential area", as a descriptive term as well as a policy tool, leads to a lack of clarity within the plan which should be addressed by the Council. I consider therefore that the Council should seek to designate "Settlement Development Boundaries" as a policy tool, making clear within the supporting text the criteria used to define such a boundary. Consequential amendments should also be made to Policy H4 to ensure that criterion (a) refers to the built-up area of the rural villages specified in Policy R8.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 116

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.9.1.3 Whilst the objectors argue that the lawful curtilage of Rydal House should be included within the designation "existing primarily residential area", having regard to my conclusions above, I consider that this may not necessarily be automatically presumed. To my mind, the inclusion of the objection site within an area where development may be allowed under the written policies of the plan has to be treated on its own merits having regard to the definition of the built-up areas of the villages. Whilst the Council have, in its explanation of how village boundaries have been defined, indicated that such definition has been carried out with the main aim of keeping the built up areas of villages in a compact form and character, there does not appear to me to be any reference to such an aim in the plan. Notwithstanding this fact, I consider that such an aim is both necessary and desirable if the open countryside is to be protected from unwarranted and unsuitable development.

2.9.1.4 The objector considers that development of the objection site would not conflict with the national, strategic and local plan policies, in that the policy context does not preclude modest development within and on the edge of villages such as Woodplumpton. In this respect, the settlements of Barton, Woodplumpton and Lea Town are intended to provide for small-scale change within the village boundaries and the objector considers that the identification of the objection site as part of the existing primarily residential area would, in principle, allow for development of the site under the terms of Policy R8. Having regard to the above, I consider that whether or not the objection site should be included within the built up area of the plan turns on, whether it relates to the form and character of Woodplumpton. 2.9.1.5 Notwithstanding the view of the objector, that the whole objection site has a character and appearance which is more urban than rural, I consider it to be more related to the open countryside than the built-up part of the village. At my site inspection, although I accept that the field forming the northern part of the site is adjoined by residential properties and their curtilages, it was clear to me that, to the south, such a contention relies on the elongated curtilage of Rydal House. This curtilage has a distinct open character and, notwithstanding its possession of a lawful use certificate for residential use, it does not in my view represent a built-up part of the village. Moreover, although it is considered that the field together with the curtilage of Rydal Mount are visually and functionally disassociated from the wider agricultural tract which lies beyond, I was not convinced at my site visit that such a conclusion was reasonable. To my mind the field, albeit having been used for riding by family members and is subject to trespass, forms part of the open countryside. Its separation from the agricultural land to the east by trees and hedgerows is a quite normal attribute of fields at the edge of villages in the open countryside.

2.9.1.6 To the south of the Rydal Mount curtilage is a sports field in public use which, although on the edge of Woodplumpton, has a character and appearance which has far greater sympathy with the open countryside than with the urban part of the village. When viewed from across this sports field the objection site clearly has the appearance of being related to the open countryside such that its development would represent a considerable and unwarranted extension into an area of distinct rural character. Consequently I am satisfied that objection site should not be included within the plan as either "existing primarily residential area" or within any "Settlement Development Boundary" that may be subsequently defined by the Council for inclusion on the Proposals Map.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 117

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend

(REC.2.20) that no modification be made to the plan in response to this objection; but that

(REC.2.21) that the Council give consideration to the delineation of "Settlement Development Boundaries" for Policy R8 settlements and that consequential amendments be made to Policies R8 and H4 and their supporting text to make clear the distinction between the designation "existing primarily residential area" and any such boundary so defined.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 118

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.10 POLICY R10 - CONVERSION OF RURAL BUILDINGS:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/R10 addresses the objections of GONW and, although CPRE and the RDC maintain their original objection, no other objections are made to the proposed changes. It is accepted by the Council that the incorrect reference to the GDO will be amended to read 1995.

Objections : O/623/10/R10 ENGLISH HERITAGE O/167/1/R10 BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC O/114/5/R10 CPRE O/158/6/R10 ENGLISH NATURE O/157/4/R10 RDC O/156/3/R10 LANCASHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST O/155/3/R10 RSPB O/70/3/R10 GONW (CW) O/39/14/R10a NORTH WEST TOURIST BOARD O/164/3/R10b P WILSON AND COMPANY O/168/10/R10b MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (CW) OPC/157/16/R10 RDC OPC/114/18/R10 CPRE

PBC Response no. : PBC/19

ISSUES

2.10.1 Whether:

(i) Policy R10 should insist upon a building of "permanent and substantial construction";

(ii) Policy R10 reflects the advice in PPG7 which gives emphasis to the conversion of rural buildings for non-residential uses;

(iii) reference should be made to the need to protect the habitats of species such as bats when physical works are undertaken as part of the conversion process;

(iv) criterion (b) should be deleted in that the improvement of the character or appearance is not always necessary or appropriate and the requirement of such improvement is unlawful;

(v) the presumption in favour of development as indicated by PPG1 is reversed by the Policy.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 119

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

2.10.2 This is a well established criterion which must be satisfied. Para.3.14 of PPG7 makes this clear.

Issue (ii)

2.10.3 PIC/01/R10 makes it clear, within the first paragraph, that development will only be allowed subject to various criteria where "there are no adverse implications for the rural economy." PPG7 does not state that there must be discrimination against the conversion of rural buildings to residential use. It is at the discretion of the local authority whether it actively discourages the conversion to residential use depending on specific local circumstances. The Council does not consider that the local rural employment situation is such to justify a presumption against such conversion to residential uses given that unemployment ranges between 2.4% in the rural east and 4% in the rural west. With regard to village shops and Businesses, Policy R13 sets out a test that any such proposal would need to satisfy. I am satisfied that the Council's approach accords with Government advice and I find no reason to recommend a modification in response to the objections on this matter.

Issue (iii)

2.10.4 The Council accepts that explicit mention should be made in the supporting text of the linkages between Policies D19j as proposed to be changed, R14 and R10 which adequately cover these objections. My conclusions on this matter have to be read together with my conclusions on Policy R14, Section 2.12, where I have recommended the deletion of Policy R14;

Issue (iv)

2.10.5 Criterion (b), as proposed to be changed, is consistent with the advice given in Para.G4 Annex G PPG7 which makes specific reference to possibility of the local planning authority securing an improvement in the external appearance of the building where it is considered to have an adverse effect on the landscape in terms of visual amenity.

Issue (v)

2.10.6 Revised PPG1 indicates in Para.40 the importance accorded to a local plan when considering proposals for development and states that: "Where an adopted or approved development plan contains relevant policies, section 54A requires that an application for planning permission or an appeal shall be determined in accordance with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.".

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 120

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend the plan be modified by:

(REC.2.22) the incorporation of PIC/01/R10;

(REC.2.23) the amendment of the supporting text to make explicit the importance of the linkage between Policies D19, and R10; but that no other modification be made in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 121

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.11 POLICY R11 - DWELLINGS FOR ESSENTIAL RURAL WORKERS:

Objections: O/70/4/R11 GONW (CW) O/164/4/R11c P WILSON AND COMPANY

PBC Response no. : PBC/6

ISSUES

2.11.1 Whether Policy R11 should be amended:

(i) to delete the word "normally";

(ii) to delete the general correlation between functional requirement of the enterprise and the size of the associated dwelling as expressed in criterion (e).

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Issue (i)

2.11.2 PIC/01/R11 adequately covers the objection made by GONW.

Issue (ii)

2.11.3 Para.11 of Annex I of PPG7 states: "Agricultural dwellings should be of a size commensurate with the established functional requirement. Dwellings which are unusually large in relation to the agricultural needs of the unit, or unusually expensive to construct in relation to the income it can sustain in the long term, should not normally be permitted. It is the requirements of the enterprise rather than of the owner or occupier which are relevant to determining the size of the dwelling that is appropriate to a particular holding.". This clearly relates the functional requirement of the enterprise and the size of the associated dwelling but, at the same time, does not preclude a three or 4 bedroomed house being built if it is required by the enterprise and is able to be sustained in the longer term by the income generated from it. Consequently I do not consider the objection made by P Wilson & Co to be justified.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(REC.2.24) I recommend that the plan be modified by the incorporation of PIC/01/R11.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 122

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.12 POLICY R14 - PROTECTION OF SPECIES:

Explanatory Note: My considerations and conclusions on the objections to this policy have to be read together with my conclusion on Policy R10.

Objections : O/129/8/R14 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION O/71/2/R14 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/158/7/R14 ENGLISH NATURE O/156/4/R14 LANCASHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST

PBC Response no. : PBC/19

ISSUES

2.12.1 Whether Policy R14 is unnecessary and contrary to National Guidance in that it is directed towards the protection of species rather than sites and areas of nature conservation;

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.12.2 The Council consider that, as wildlife is by its very nature not constrained by any notation on any map, a policy is required which can be used when appraising an application for development which would affect a protected species. Clearly therefore Policy R14 by definition cannot be related to a specific site or area. PPG9 makes it clear in Para.44 that: "local authorities should consult English Nature before granting planning permission and should consider attaching appropriate planning conditions or entering into planning obligations under which the developer would take steps to secure the protection of the species, particularly if a species listed in Annex IV to the habitats directive would be affected.". This does not indicate to me that a policy to protect species is appropriate for inclusion within a local plan.

2.12.3 In terms of nature conservation, local plans should include only policies related to nature conservation sites and the areas and sites to which policies apply. To my mind, in that Policy 14 cannot be related to specific sites or areas, it does not constitute a land use policy and as such should not be included in the local plan. Moreover in order to make clear that protection will be given to individual species of importance I consider it would be sufficient for the explanatory text, set out in Para.4/63 to be included within the explanatory text under Policies R5 and R6.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.2.25) the deletion of Policy R14 but that Para.4/63 be included within the supporting text to Policies R5 and R6.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 123

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

2.13 POLICY R15 - SURFACE WATER AND GROUND WATER SUPPLIES:

Objection : O/128/8/R15 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (CW)

PBC Response no. : PIC/01/R15

ISSUE

2.13.1 Whether Policy R15 conflicts with the LSP

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

2.13.2 The Council's proposal that the words "or coastal" be added to Policy R15 after the word "surface" adequately deals with the objection.

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.2.26) I recommend that the plan be modified by the incorporation of PIC/01/R15.

CHAPTER 2 THE COUNTRYSIDE POLICIES 124

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 3 - GREENSPACE

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 125

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.1 POLICY G1 - PARKS AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE:

Explanatory Note: A number of minor amendments to the Proposals Map are proposed under PIC/01/G1 and PIC/08/G1 which do not relate directly to the objection to Policy G1. No objections have been made to these and as such they can be accepted.

Objection : O/71/20/G1 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST

PBC Response no. :PBC/56

ISSUES:

3.1.1 Whether Policy G1 is consistent with national and LSP Policy and should be reworded in line with the advice contained in PPG17.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

3.1.2 Policy G1 is concerned with the protection of existing parks and other areas of public open space, which are principally in the ownership and control of the Council. Para.26 of PPG17 indicates that: "Plans will need to distinguish on the Proposals Map between: open spaces which are in the authority's view will need to be protected from development for as far ahead as can be foreseen; ....". Para.42 of PPG7, to which the objector refers, is mainly concerned with playing fields and the criteria contained within this paragraph are not intended to be applied to all Greenspace. Consequently I consider that DP Policy G1 is not in conflict with national policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.3.1) the incorporation of PIC/01/G1 and PIC/08/G1 but that no modification be made in response to the above objection.

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 126

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.2 POLICY G2 - AMENITY GREENSPACE:

Explanatory Note: Objections O/133/3/G2 & O/133/6/G2 made by CNT to Policy G2 concern the non-allocation of land for housing and are dealt with in Chapter 1 the Development Strategy (See Section 1.3). Similarly objections O/120/1/G2 and OPC/120/3/G2 made by Mrs B Wignall to the allocation of land within the plan as greenspace and the PIC as open countryside. See also Section 1.3.

***************************

3.2.1 POLICY G2 - AMENITY GREENSPACE: GENERAL

Objections : O/71/21/G2 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/154/1/G2 RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION

PBC Response nos. :PBC/18 & 57

ISSUES:

3.2.1.1 Whether:

(i) Policy G2 is inconsistent with PPG17 and the LSP;

(ii) Policy G2 should make provision to link greenspaces to the open countryside, improving the footpath network.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

3.2.1.2 Policy G2 is concerned with the protection of amenity greenspace. Para.26 of PPG17 indicates that: "Plans will need to distinguish on the Proposals Map between: open spaces which in the authority's view will need to be protected from development for as far ahead as can be foreseen; ....". The Council considers that amenity greenspace falls into this category. Para.42 of PPG7 to which the objector refers is mainly concerned with playing fields. The criteria contained within this paragraph are not intended to be applied to all Greenspace and I consider that DP Policy G2 is not in conflict with national policy.

Issue (ii)

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 127

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.2.1.3 Policy G2 provides guidance to protect important amenity greenspace sites from development, it is not a policy for footpaths. Policies T6 and L6 are more directly related to the provision of footpaths.

***************************

3.2.2 MIDGERY LANE, FULWOOD

Explanatory Note: In the Consultation Draft Plan the whole of the objection site was shown as being part of a greenspace area covered by Policy G1. At the consultation stage of the plan the objector proposed that the objection site be included within Policy G2 but that the policy be changed to allow development which enhances amenity. The Council, whilst accepting that Policy G2 is the appropriate allocation for the site, did not accept the suggested amendment to the wording. Subsequently, in their objection to the DP, the objectors sought the inclusion of the site in the adjoining "existing primarily residential area" and the deletion of any reference to the objection site being covered by Policy G2. PIC/02/G2 includes the whole of the objection site as Greenspace covered by Policy G2.

Objections : O/101/1/G2a W JACKSON AND SONS CADLEY LTD OPC/101/4/G2 W JACKSON AND SONS CADLEY LTD

PBC Response no. : PBC/57

ISSUES:

3.2.2.1 Whether the objection site should be allocated as Existing Primarily Residential Area under Policy H9 having regard to:

the approved Longsands Lane Section 7(1) Scheme the amenity value of the objection site.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

The Approved Longsands Lane Section 7(1) Scheme

3.2.2.2 It is argued by the objector that it is wrong to give credence to the Section 7(1) scheme in drafting the local plan. However the Council has consistently sought to secure the implementation of approved Section 7(1) schemes and, in the case of the Longsands Lane Section 7(1), this is reflected in the Policies HSG1 and HSG2 of the PRALP. Decisions on detailed proposals within a Section 7(1) area are a matter for the CNT and the Secretary of State. Clearly, therefore, Section 7(1) schemes cannot be dismissed as merely anachronistic, and the on-going

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 128

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

schemes at Longsands and Cottam represent major commitments which I have to take into account.

3.2.2.3 CNT have supported the allocation of the objection site as Amenity Greenspace in arguing that it is not necessary for them to acquire all of the land defined as brook valley open space for the Section 7(1)'s land use objectives to be met. Carrying forward the Section 7(1)'s proposals for the objection site will, in the Council's view, maintain the balance of development to open space established in the scheme. The protection of such a balance is important and has resulted in the inclusion of the objection site as Amenity Greenspace in the plan.

The Amenity Value of the Objection Site

3.2.2.4 From observation at my site visit, I consider that the site still constitutes an integral part of the brook valley landscape which forms a permanent divide between the two main northern and southern residential sectors of the Longsands Lane Section 7(1) scheme. The brook valley provides an open setting for these residential areas and preserves their separate identities. Whilst the objector considers that the site does not display any of the key features incorporated within the definition of Greenspace (PBC/CP/5), in my view, the fact that is an integral part of the brook valley landscape warrants its inclusion within such a definition.

3.2.2.5 Notwithstanding the existing levels of Greenspace provision in the Sherwood Ward, or the fact that the site currently has an unsightly appearance, I consider that the establishment of a residential curtilage on the objection site, even if well screened from the footpath, would represent and unwarranted urban incursion into the brook valley. Other recent developments to which the objector refers are located on the plateau above the brook valley, or higher up the valley sides.

3.2.2.6 The proposed development of even a single bungalow, well screened from the brook valley, would be particularly apparent from the vantage points further upstream occupied by footpaths linking the new residential developments to the brook valley itself. Consequently I consider the loss of this site to development would unacceptably diminish the extent, character and appearance of this attractive brook valley. As such, I do not consider the objector's suggested changes to the plan to be warranted. In reaching these conclusions, whilst I have had regard to recent appeal decisions given in the immediate vicinity of the site, I have treated the objections on their own merits.

***************************

3.2.3 KILLINGSOUGH FARM

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/G2 changes the designation of the objection site from Amenity Greenspace (Policy G2) to Open Countryside (Policy R2). This proposed change adequately deals with the objection made and is necessary to ensure that appropriate agricultural development is not prevented.

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 129

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Objection : O/188/1/G2 MR D A ROBINSON (CW)

PBC Response no. : PBC/57

***************************

RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY G2

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.3.2) the incorporation of PIC/01/G2;

(REC.3.3) the incorporation of PIC/02/G2; but that no modification be made to the plan in response to the other objections.

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 130

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.3 POLICY G3 - PRIVATE, EDUCATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL GREENSPACE:

Explanatory Note: Objections of a site specific nature made by Arlington Property Developments Limited are dealt with in relation to its objections to Policies H3 and H4 (See Sections 7.3 and 7.4).

***************************

3.3.1 POLICY G3 - GENERAL

Objections : O/42/16/G3 SPORTS COUNCIL NORTH WEST REGION O/71/22/G3 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/203/1/G3 ARLINGTON PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

PBC Response no. : PBC/58

ISSUES:

3.3.1.1 Whether:

(i) Clause (b) should: "require replacement facilities to be available for use before the original facility is lost.".

(ii) Policy G3 is unclear and inconsistent with national and LSP Policy and should be better related to PPG17;

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

3.3.1.2 The Council accepts the need to change the policy such that replacement facilities are available for use at the time of the loss, if not before. Circular 1/97, Para B10, indicates that: "... Developers should recognise the need to provide a replacement that is ready and available for use at the time of the loss rather than at some unknown point in the future.". Clearly, therefore, the suggested change is supported by national guidance and is appropriate for inclusion within the plan. It also provides for greater certainty within the plan.

Issue (ii)

3.3.1.3 It is argued by objectors that Policy G3 is too detailed and should be re-worded to better reflect the criteria in Para.42 of PPG17. However, whilst national planning guidance should be taken into account in preparing development plans, policies should not merely restate this guidance. The Council have, within PBC/CD/5, identified that the amount of recreational

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 131

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

greenspace is significantly below the nationally recognised minimum standards and this provides, except in certain exceptional circumstances, the basic justification for seeking to protect all recreational greenspace.

3.3.1.4 The Council accept, regarding criterion A, that the word "fully" adds little to the meaning of the policy and agrees its deletion. I have concluded above that I consider the Council to be justified in extending criterion B. I also consider the policy to be flexible in that the exact form of replacement provision, and the community benefit derived from it, can be negotiated with the interested parties at the planning application stage. Criterion C addresses the effect of any loss of facilities beyond the area immediately surrounding those facilities. This is acceptable in that some facilities cater for demand from across the whole Borough or beyond and any such loss of such facilities needs to be taken into account.

3.3.1.5 As far as criterion D is concerned it would be too restrictive to limit any extensions to schools or other institutions to those which are "for leisure and recreational use only". There are clearly circumstances where the legitimate needs for educational or institutional development must be met within the grounds of the establishment concerned. Given that the Council intend to expand the reasoned justification, to make clear that, if possible, such improvements should be designed to avoid such loss of facilities, I consider that criterion D is acceptable.

3.3.1.6 Having regard to the above I consider, subject to the accepted changes, that Policy G3 is consistent with national policy and should be retained within the plan.

***************************

3.3.2 LAND AT END OF GRAFTON ST, FORMERLY GPO CAR PARK

Objection : O/46/1/G3 MR M R JACKSON

PBC Response no. :PBC/35

ISSUE:

3.3.2.1 Whether the former GPO car park at Grafton Street should be designated as recreational space providing for the needs residents in the area.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

3.3.2.2 The DP allocates the site in question as being within "existing primarily residential area" to which Policies H9 - H17 apply. Policy H9 accommodates the provision of small areas of greenspace within residential areas, where opportunities arise. However planning permission has been granted for the objection site to be laid out as a car park in support of a new temple on South

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 132

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Meadow Lane, the use falling within those considered appropriate in a primarily residential area. Consequently this approval is a commitment which cannot be changed by the local plan process.

***************************

3.3.3 NORTH OF LIGHTFOOT LANE, PRESTON GRASSHOPPERS RUGBY GROUND

Explanatory Note: My considerations and conclusions on this objection have to be read in conjunction with my conclusions on the objection made by the objector concerning the non- allocation of land for housing at Section 1.3.

Objection : O/87/4/G3 MESSRS AIREY, MAUDSLEY, AND MURPHY

PBC Response no. : PBC/58

ISSUE:

3.3.3.1 Whether the site of Preston Grasshoppers Rugby Ground should be identified under Policy G3 and not as open countryside.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

3.3.3.2 In general, recreational facilities such as playing fields are an appropriate use within open countryside. Greenspace is a term applied to open land within the urban area and the objector's proposal would, in effect, extend the urban boundary northwards to the M55. Given the openness that the area provides at the urban edge of Preston, I consider that its allocation as open countryside (Policy R2) constitutes the appropriate allocation within the lifetime of the plan.

***************************

3.3.4 FULWOOD BARRACKS

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/G3 amends the boundary between Fulwood Barracks (Policy SS30) and recreational greenspace such that all of the barracks buildings are included within Policy SS30. The proposed change is a logical and necessary amendment which adequately deals with the objection.

Objection : O/193/1/G3 DEFENCE ESTATES ORGANISATION (CW)

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 133

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

PBC Response no. : PBC/58

***************************

RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY G3

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.3.4) by the amendment of Criteria A and B of Policy G3 to read:

"(A) The facilities now provided can be retained or enhanced through the development of only a small part of the site; or

(B) Alternative provision of similar or better facilities in terms of community benefit can be implemented on another site in the area and be available for use at the same time or before, the existing facilities cease to be available.";

(REC.3.5) the deletion of the reasoned justification to Policy G3 and its replacement by the following:

"Paragraph 5/25 - The criteria included in this policy reflect the advice in PPG17 (Sport and Recreation). It is important to ensure that where alternative provision is proposed this is ready and available for use by the community at the time of loss of existing facilities. Some facilities such as sports pitches can take up to 2 years to establish before they are ready for use. Proposals which involve the expansion or improvement of a school or other institution should be designed to avoid any loss of recreational facilities if possible. Where some loss is unavoidable, this should be kept to a minimum.".

(REC.3.6) by the incorporation of PIC/01/G3; but that no modification be made to the plan in response to the other objections.

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 134

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.4 POLICY G4 - SMALL AMENITY GREENSPACES IN HOUSING AREAS

Objection : O/71/23/G4 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST

PBC Response no. : PBC/59

ISSUE:

3.4.1 Whether Policy G4 is inconsistent with national and LSP policy and should be reworded in line with the advice contained in PPG17.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

3.4.2 Policy G4 is concerned with small amenity greenspaces in housing areas. Para.42 of PPG17, to which the objector refers, is mainly concerned with playing fields and the criteria contained within this paragraph are not intended to be applied to all Greenspace, nor are they considered appropriate for small areas such as those covered by this policy. Consequently I consider that DP Policy G1 is not in conflict with national policy.

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.3.7) I recommend that no modification be made to the plan in response to this objection.

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 135

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.5 POLICY G5 - ROAD VERGES AND OTHER INCIDENTAL GREENSPACE:

***************************

3.5.1 POLICY G5 - GENERAL

Objections : O/71/24/G5 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/153/10/G5a PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

PBC Response no. :PBC/60

ISSUES:

3.5.1.1 Whether:

(i) Policy G5 is inconsistent with national and LSP policy and should be reworded in line with the advice contained in PPG17.

(ii) reference to Policy T5 should be deleted from the policy.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

3.5.1.2 Policy G5 is concerned with road verges and other incidental greenspaces which are primarily of visual amenity value. Para.42 of PPG17, to which the objector refers, is mainly concerned with playing fields. The criteria contained within this paragraph are not intended to be applied to all Greenspace, and are not considered appropriate for small areas such as those covered by Policy G5. Consequently I conclude that DP Policy G5 is not in conflict with national policy.

Issue (ii)

3.5.1.3 Whilst highway verges, and other areas of incidental greenspace, often contribute significantly to the quality of the local environment there can be occasions when some loss of this type of greenspace may be justified, e.g.improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, or environmental improvements resulting from traffic management measures. In this context, part (c) of Policy T5 is concerned with tackling congestion and associated environmental problems in the town centre. Policy T6 is concerned with the improvement of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. Consequently I am satisfied that the cross references to these policies are justified.

***************************

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 136

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.5.2 NORTH SIDE OF QUEEN STREET

Explanatory Note: This objection is considered as part of other objections to site specific matters mainly concerned with the non-allocation within the plan for retail development. As such I deal with the matters related to Policy G5 at Section 9.1.2.

Objection : O/181/3/G5 E H BOOTH AND CO LTD

PBC Response no. : PBC/9

***************************

RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY G5

(REC.3.8) I recommend that no modification be made to the plan in response to these objections.

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 137

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.6 POLICY G6 - GOLF COURSES:

Objection : O/154/2/G6 RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION

PBC Response no. : PBC/18

ISSUE:

3.6.1 Whether specific mention should be made of footpaths within Policy G6.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

3.6.2 Policy G6 concerns proposed development within and adjacent to existing golf courses and does not directly concern footpaths. Policy L2 - New Golf Courses protects existing footpaths if affected by proposals for new courses. Footpath policies are addressed by Policies T6 and L6 and the Council agrees to refer to these under cross references after Policy G6.

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.3.9) I recommend that no modification be made to Policy G6 of the plan but that cross reference be included within the other related policies of the plan to Policies T6 and L6.

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 138

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.7 POLICY G7 - CEMETERIES AND CREMATORIA

Explanatory Note: This objection is dealt with in connection with the objections concerning development at Whittingham Hospital (See Section.1.3.7).

Objection : O/71/3/G7 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST

PBC Response no. : PBC/26

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 139

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.8 POLICY G8 - TARGETS FOR RECREATIONAL GREENSPACE PROVISION:

Explanatory note: The Council propose, under PIC/01/G8, to include reference to NPFA's requirement for 1.2ha per 1000 population within the overall outdoor sports standard. This satisfies the objection which has been Conditionally Withdrawn.

Objections : O/42/13/G8 SPORTS COUNCIL NORTH WEST REGION (CW)

PBC Response no. :

RECOMMENDATION

(REC.3.10) I recommend that the plan be modified by the incorporation of PIC/01/G8.

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 140

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.9 POLICY G9 - PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE:

***************************

3.9.1 POLICY G9 - GENERAL

Objection : O/154/3/G9 RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION

PBC Response no. : PBC/18

ISSUES:

3.9.1.1 Whether specific mention should be made of footpaths within Policy G9.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

3.9.1.2 The objector refers to the fact that there is no commitment that the footpaths in the specified public open spaces in Policy G9 will be added to the Definitive Map. The management, administrative, maintenance, operational and promotional matters associated with footpaths are not land use matters and cannot be addressed by the local plan process.

***************************

3.9.2 SAVICK BROOK, WEST OF GARSTANG ROAD

Explanatory Note: Three objections are made to the non-allocation of land for housing in the area adjacent to Savick Brook. Reference is made to specific sites by two of the objectors under objection nos O/97/1/G9 & O/119/1/G9b. I deal with these after dealing with the general issues associated with the application of Policy G9 to the area defined under part (B) of the policy. The Council have under PIC/02/G9 proposed the re-designation of a small area of land adjacent to Derby Road from Public Open Space to Existing Primarily Residential. Support for this course of action is expressed by Objector No.119.

Objection : O/97/1/G9 EXECUTORS OF H HUTCHINSON O/131/1/G9b TRUSTEES PRESTON AND NORTH LANCS BLIND WELFARE SOC O/119/1/G9b WALLWORK NELSON AND JOHNSON

PBC Response no. : PBC/11

ISSUES:

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 141

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.9.2.1 Whether Policy G9 should be amended to allow limited development in areas of proposed open space in order to achieve the aim of securing greater public access to these areas, paying particular attention to part (B) of Policy G9, i.e the land south of Edgehill Close, and having regard to:

the historical context of the proposals implementation the effect on amenity

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

The Historical Context of the Proposals

3.9.2.2 The Fulwood, Broughton and Lea Town map 1967 included the allocation of the area as open space and, although phased for the period 1969-71, this was never implemented. Following the absorption of the area into Preston Borough, the Council prepared the Fulwood and Western Suburbs Local Plan (FWSLP) in 1991. The objection site was designated under Policy OS3 as being within an area which the Council would seek to establish new areas of public open space where opportunities arise. The DP under Policy G9 simply allocates the area as open space. It is generally accepted by the objectors that there is a local need for such open space and that it would be well used by the public.

3.9.2.3 The area, described in Part (B) of Policy G9, is the only significant brook valley open space in the urban area where there is no formal public access. In the absence of successful negotiation it is suggested by an objector that Policy G9 be reworded, more in accord with the previous planning history, to indicate that: "the Council would favour comprehensive schemes which would facilitate the early provision of a public open space facility within the designated area without expressly excluding other forms of development within small parts of it.". Whilst the objector considers that Policy OS3 of the FWSLP provides a better model for the policy wording, in my view, this is not a good expression of policy in that it is more a statement of intent rather than a clear and precise policy. However, whilst DP Policy G9 is clearly expressed, there is no reference in the policy or its reasoned justification to the difficulties concerning the implementation of the policy or the method of implementation intended to overcome such difficulties.

Implementation of the Open Space Proposals

3.9.2.4 The Council accept that its ability to acquire the areas of land identified in Policy G9 is limited by the severe constraints on its capital programme and no budget provision has been made for such acquisition. It is considered that funds may be generated for the purchase of at least some of the proposed open space identified through the application of Policy G10. However the application of Policy G10 for the purchase this land would depend on funds deriving from housing that is well related to the land. It seems to me therefore that, given the unlikely success of negotiation between the parties and the lack of other potential housing sites in the vicinity to generate such funding, there is little likelihood of the implementation of the open

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 142

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

space within the plan period. This being the case I consider that the existing and potential amenity/recreational value of the area has to be balanced against the likely effect of any enabling development on the existing open amenity of the area.

The Effect On Amenity

3.9.2.5 It is accepted by the Council that Para.5.43 of the supporting text should be amended to make clear that the area has potential for use as both formal recreation or informal amenity greenspace. The Council considers however that, even if it is not possible to bring the area into public ownership within the plan period, it remains important that the area is safeguarded from development as far ahead as can be foreseen. This is seen to accord with the advice given in Para.26 PPG17 in that it is of significant amenity/recreational value.

3.9.2.6 From my own observations of the area at my site visits, I am satisfied that the area defined on the Proposals Map, as amended by PIC/02/G9, and to include the area of land up to the garden boundary of No.217 Garstang Road which was clearly, in my view, incorrectly excluded from the brook valley open space, forms a significant area of open space which should be protected from development. Although the Council consider that this area should be rationalised as indicated on Plan 2 of PBC/11 to provide a "coherent" development site, I am not convinced that such a marginal re-designation of the area within the open valley area to "existing primarily residential area" would have the desired effect. Moreover such a course of action would in itself promote an encroachment into the open area beyond the established existing residential boundary.

3.9.2.7 The Executors of H Hutchinson (dec'd) propose, under objection O/97/1/G9, that the boundary of the existing primarily residential area be extended further to the west into the existing open valley area to produce such a "coherent" development site. Whilst this would clearly produce a larger development site, it would encroach significantly into the open space which I have already concluded should be protected. Similarly, I consider the proposal made by The Trustees Preston and N.Lancashire Blind Welfare Society, under objection O/131/1/G9b, would also significantly encroach into this area to the detriment of its openness. In reaching these conclusions I have also taken into account the appeal decisions that have been made in respect of what I understand to be similar sites. I am in agreement with both Inspector's conclusions that development of either of these sites would be "harmful to the "integrity" of the open space" as it currently exists.

3.9.2.8 Having regard to the above, I also conclude that to amend the policy in the manner suggested by the objectors would be inappropriate. It would not afford sufficient protection to the area, nor would it provide the "reasonable certainty" as to the weight to be given to open space needs as specified in Para.13 of PPG17. The Council have reasonably concluded that the brook valley should be protected from development as far ahead as can be foreseen, notwithstanding that it recognises the difficulties of negotiating its implementation as public amenity/recreation space. It is recognised however, that a level of public access may be able to be achieved by agreement with the land owners as an interim measure. The Council's approach has merit and there is no overriding advantage in the making the changes to the policy as suggested by the objectors.

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 143

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.9.2.9 I conclude that no modification be made to Policy G9 but that reference to the possibility of negotiating access agreements should be added to the reasoned justification at Para.5/41. In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account that the Council agree that the topography of the valley slopes, whilst constraining development, would not prevent it, and agree that Para.5/41 of the supporting text should be amended to reflect this. Further it is also agreed by the Council that Para.5/43 should be amended to make reference to the types of greenspace envisaged. In this respect, although not subject of objection, I consider in order to maintain consistency, that Paras 5.44 and 5.46 should be similarly amended.

***************************

3.9.3 LAND AT LONGSANDS LANE - VILLAGE GREEN

Explanatory Note: The Proposals Map wrongly shows the whole of the Longsands Lane site for greenspace when part will be developed for housing. PIC/01/G9 rectifies the situation.

Objection : O/139/5/G9 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS (CW)

***************************

RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY G9

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.3.11) the incorporation of PIC/02/G9;

(REC.3.12) the amendment of the Proposals Map to the boundary of the greenspace allocation to be drawn along the western rear boundary of No.217 Garstang Road;

(REC.3.13) the amendment of Para.5/41 of the reasoned justification by the substitution of the word "constrained" for "prevented" and the addition of "This policy will be implemented by direct Council action and through the negotiation of access agreements with land owners. The developers of new housing may be required to contribute towards the cost of acquiring land for use as public open space, in accordance with Policy G10.";

(REC.3.14) the addition to para.5/43 of: "This area has potential for both formal recreation and amenity greenspace.";

and

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 144

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(REC.3.15) to maintain consistency within the plan, consequential amendments be made to Paras.5.44 and 5.46;

but that no modifications be made in response to the other objections.

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 145

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.10 POLICY G10 - GREENSPACE PROVISION IN NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT:

Explanatory Note: The Council, in response to an objection by GONW, propose under PIC/01/G10 to delete Part (iii) of the DP policy to ensure that any proposal to upgrade existing school playing fields is related to the housing site. It also proposes to delete the reference relating the provision commuted sums for maintenance purposes. Whilst I deal with the whole question of commuted sums below, these proposed changes are considered by GONW to deal adequately with its objections which are Conditionally Withdrawn. It is also accepted by the Council that the application of a commuted sums policy cannot be applied retrospectively.

Although objections have been made by the HBF, Newfield Jones and Morris Homes Ltd to SPG Note 17, this note does not form part of the plan and consequently these particular matters are not for my consideration. Whilst I have taken this guidance note into account, in my consideration of issues concerning Policy G10, the Council concedes that detailed changes to the SPG are needed to ensure that it is consistent with Circular 1/97. It is however for the Council to ensure that SPG is consistent with Government Guidance and local plan policy and that it is subject to full consultation procedures.

Objection : O/71/4/G10 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/70/5/G10 GONW (CW) O/89/2/G10 HOUSE BUILDERS FEDERATION O/92/6/G10 WIMPEY HOMES HOLDINGS LIMITED O/175/6/G10 MORRIS HOMES LTD O/187/1/G10 NEWFIELD JONES HOMES O/187/2/G10 NEWFIELD JONES HOMES O/89/8/GX HOUSE BUILDERS FEDERATION

PBC Response no. : PBC/63 & 63a

ISSUES:

3.10.1 Whether:

(i) the requirement to provide both recreational and amenity greenspace is too onerous;

(ii) the policy does not relate the expected provision to needs generated by particular developments;

(iii) the commuted sum aspect of the policy is contrary to Circular 1/97;

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 146

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

3.10.2 The Council's approach to securing appropriate greenspace provision to meet the needs of new residential development is, in essence, to apply the NPFA's "Six Acre Standard" for recreational greenspace on a pro-rata basis, i.e. appropriate provision being made for each new dwelling. In addition, an element of amenity greenspace is also expected. Where the needs of development cannot be met by appropriate greenspace provision within the development site, or at a suitable off-site location, then a financial contribution is sought from the developer in lieu of that greenspace provision.

3.10.3 In the DP, a clear distinction is made between recreational and amenity greenspace and this is reflected in the Council's "Audit of Greenspace". Moreover the NPFA "Six Acre" Standard" specifically excludes certain types of greenspace, thus the 2.4ha standard is not intended to meet all greenspace needs. Consequently I am satisfied that it is quite reasonable for the Council to seek to ensure that a reasonable amount of greenspace is provided to meet the amenity needs of particular developments.

3.10.4 In this respect also, I consider that Para.3 of PPG17 supports the provision of amenity greenspace in addition to recreational greenspace. It indicates: "that development plans should ensure that adequate land and water resources are allocated for organised sport and informal recreation.". Whilst there is no generally recognised standard for amenity greenspace to be used for informal recreation, I am satisfied that the Council's assessment of 0.9 ha per 1000 population represents a reasonable approach, it being based on the provision of about 0.1 ha for a development of 40 3-bed homes.

Issue (ii)

3.10.5 As written, Policy G10 as proposed to be changed, does not take into account the existing level of greenspace provision within the area for either recreational or amenity use, or whether there is already sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the development proposed. The Council has accepted the need for SPG Note 17 to be amended to reflect a catchment area approach be used towards such provision. The Council also accepts that the guiding principle should be that, where there is already a shortage of facilities, this should not be made worse by the new development. This approach is reasonable and would reflect the need to relate the expected provision to needs generated by particular development as suggested by the objectors. As such, I consider that the policy and supporting text of the plan should be modified accordingly.

3.10.6 Although objectors consider that the approach adopted to greenspace provision would conflict with other local plan policies on affordable housing and density policy, I am in agreement with the Council that such schemes generate as much need for greenspace as do other types of housing development.

Issue (iii)

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 147

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 1 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

3.10.7 Apart fom the issue of commuted sums for maintenance, which is adequately dealt with under PIC/01/G10, objection is made that the Council's intention to seek to secure the payment of commuted sums in lieu of provision is contrary to Circular 1/97. In my view, however, Para.20 of PPG17 clearly indicates that such an approach may be entertained even in the case of small developments. It is sufficient for the policy to indicate that the Council "may seek to enter into ..." leaving the detailed aproach to made to be considered within the relevant SPG. However in order to ensure the compliance of the SPG with Government guidance I draw the Council's attention to Para.21 of PPG17.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.3.17) the incorporation of PIC/01/G10;

(REC.3.18) the inclusion of the words "where there is already a shortage of facilities within the appropriate catchment area" between the words "include" and "provision" in the first sentence of the policy.

(REC.3.19) the amendment of the supporting text to indicate how the appropriate catchment areas are to be defined and to take account of the provisons of Para.21 of PPG17.

CHAPTER 3 THE GREENSPACE POLICIES 148

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 4 - CONSERVATION OF THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 149

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 150

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

4.1 OMISSIONS FROM CONSERVATION POLICIES:

***************************

4.1.1 GENERAL

Objections : O/623/6/C0 ENGLISH HERITAGE O/623/5/C0 ENGLISH HERITAGE

PBC Response no. : PBC/36

ISSUES:

4.1.1.1 Whether:

(i) the plan makes adequate reference to the requirement to bring forward proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas;

(ii) the plan should make explicit the Council's approach to the use of Article 4 directions.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

4.1.1.2 The Council accepts that the plan should recognise the desire to bring forward such proposals and suggests an amendment to the introduction section of Policy C1 to overcome this objection. Although the Council has indicated that it proposes to further amend the reasoned justification to Policy C1, no detail of the amendment is suggested.

Issue (ii)

4.1.1.3 The Council has recognised the need for additional protection in conservation areas by introducing Article 4 directions. It is considered appropriate to amend the reasoned justification at Para.6/14 to reflect this. Such action adequately meets the objection.

***************************

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 151

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

4.1.2 (A) GRAFTON STREET, (B) BROUGHTON & (C) 35 FISHERGATE

Objections : O/46/4/C0 MR M R JACKSON O/171/3/CX NATWEST GROUP PROPERTY O/623/7/C1 ENGLISH HERITAGE

PBC Response no. :PBC/35 & 44

ISSUES:

4.1.2.1 Whether: (A) The Grafton Street area and (B) Broughton should be designated as Conservation Areas and whether: (C) 35 Fishergate should be excluded from the Conservation Area.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

4.1.2.2 PPG15 advises that the process of assessment, detailed definition or revision of conservation area boundaries should be pursued separately from the local plan process itself. The designation of conservation areas falls under the auspices of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and is not part of the local plan process. These particular matters are therefore not for my consideration.

***************************

RECOMMENDATIONS: OMISSIONS

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.4.1) the amendment of Para.6/7 of the supporting text as follows: "In addition ... required to protect and enhance it including proposals for the preservation and enhancement which, where possible, will be brought forward. The guidance ..".

(REC.4.2) the amendment of Para.6/14 of the supporting text as follows: ".... Existing conservation area appraisals .....are justified and, at this stage, if it is considered that these areas are being adversely affected by the changes taking place as a result of permitted development rights the need for Article 4 Directions will be considered. As part ....".

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 152

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(REC.4.3) the amendment of the supporting text to include reference to the requirement to bring forward proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas; but that no other modifications be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 153

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

4.2 OBJECTIONS TO GLOSSARY:

Explanatory Note: The Council accepts the need to amend the Glossary to refer to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as the relevant authority for exercising powers for Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

Objection : O/623/9/CX ENGLISH HERITAGE

PBC Response no. :PBC/44

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.4.4) I recommend that the Glossary of the plan be modified to refer to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as the relevant authority for exercising powers for Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 154

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

4.3 POLICY C1 - DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION AREAS:

Explanatory Note: The Council, as part of PIC/01/C1 and a subsequent additional amendment to criterion (k), proposes: the deletion of the word "normally" from the policy; the addition of the words "or other streetworks" after the words "development proposals" and; the addition of a new criterion "(k) the special character of the conservation area and views towards it.". These proposed changes adequately deal with the objections made by GONW and English Heritage. My recommendations on the objections should be read together with my considerations and conclusions concerning omissions to the conservation policies of the plan at Section 4.1.

Objections : O/167/2/C1 BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC O/70/6/C1 GONW (CW) O/129/10/C1 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION OPC/623/13/C1 ENGLISH HERITAGE

PBC Response no. :PBC/37

ISSUES:

4.3.1 Whether:

(i) Policy C1 is inappropriate in that it makes no allowance for the benefits that proposals may bring, notwithstanding any adverse effect on the character and appearance of a conservation area that may be caused;

(ii) criterion (g) is inappropriate in that the use to which a property is put should not be given weight in appraising development proposals in conservation areas.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

4.3.2 Policy C1 accords with the statutory duty under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area. Only in exceptional and rare cases, where it is deemed to be desirable on the grounds of some other public benefit, may the duty be overridden. As such I consider it to be inappropriate to detail under what circumstances this will apply. Moreover Policy C1, as proposed to be amended, sets out sufficient criteria to ensure that acceptability can be considered in a balanced manner.

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 155

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Issue (ii)

4.3.3 The Council considers that, whilst the policy allows for the prevalent land use to be taken into account, this will vary with each conservation area. The character and appearance of a conservation area is quite often dependent on the prevalent land use within it and, consequently, an inappropriate use of a building could have harmful effects on its character. As such, and given that it is only one of several criteria which have to be taken into account on the application of the policy, I consider citerion (g) to be both necessary and reasonable.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that Policy C1 of the plan be modified by

(REC.4.5) the deletion of the word "normally";

(REC.4.6) the addition of the words "or other streetworks" after the words "Development Proposals" and;

(REC.4.7) the addition of a new criterion "(k) the special character of the conservation area and views towards it."; but that no other modifications be made to the plan in response to the other objections.

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 156

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

4.4 POLICY C4 - SETTING OF LISTED BUILDINGS:

Explanatory Note: As a result of the objections made to the DP, the Council considered it appropriate to amend the policy wording to make it clearer in its aim to preserve the setting of a listed building. PIC/01/C4 proposes to delete the remainder of the policy wording after the word "they", substituting the words: "are not damaging to the special character of the listed building or views towards it". As a result of these proposed changes GONW has Conditionally Withdrawn its objection.

Objections : O/71/26/C4 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/70/7/C4 GONW (CW)

OPC/623/11/C4 ENGLISH HERITAGE OPC/71/35/C4 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST

PBC Response no. :PBC/38

ISSUES:

4.4.1 Whether Policy C4 is unclear having regard to its purpose and effect.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

4.4.2 Whilst the Council considers that PIC/01/C4 satisfactorily addresses the objections made to this policy, even as amended, the policy remains unclear. To my mind the setting and the views obtained of a listed building are, more often than not, one and the same. It is the "desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building" which the Council must have special regard to. The determination of the setting of such a building would require that the views of the building were taken into account. Moreover, the Council itself recognises, in Para.6/23 of the DP, that setting is often an essential part of a listed building's character. Consequently, I consider the reference to views adds little to the policy and should be deleted. 4.4.3 Although English Heritage suggest the rewording of the policy, its suggestion is framed in a somewhat negative manner and refers to matters of design, siting, scale, materials and colour. These matters are adequately covered in Policy C6(b). As such I do not consider that this suggestion has any advantage over the Council's PIC. Similarly, whilst the NHS Executive suggest a rewording of the policy which is positively worded I consider it has no significant advantage over the Council's approach.

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 157

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the Policy C4 of the plan be modified by:

(REC.4.8) the deletion of the remainder of the policy wording after the word "they" and the substitution of the following: "are not damaging to the special character of the listed building".

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 158

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

4.5 POLICY C5 - USE OF LISTED BUILDINGS:

Objection : O/71/5/C5 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST

PBC Response no. : PBC/39

ISSUES:

4.5.1 Whether, having regard to Government advice set out in PPG15, criterion (b) should be deleted from Policy C5.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

4.5.2 Whilst para.2.18 of PPG15 indicates that: "New uses may often be the key to a building's or area's preservation..." this paragraph goes on to state: ".. in general the same provisions on change of use should apply to historic buildings as to all others. ..". Given this advice and the fact that the Council, in the reasoned justification, recognises: "the need for flexibility in the application of policies, governing change of use, in the interests of securing a building's survival.", I consider that the policy, and its interpretation, accords with the provisions of PPG15. Consequently, I am in agreement with the Council that the use of listed buildings should, in the main, be consistent with its land use policies and that Policy C5(b) is both reasonable and necessary.

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.4.9) I recommend that no modification be made to the plan in response to this objection.

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 159

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

4.6 POLICY C6 - ALTERATION OF LISTED BUILDINGS:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/C6 proposes within criterion (C), the deletion of the words "Maintain the visual" and their replacement by the words "Retain the special..." and, in criterion (D), proposes the replacement of the words "Have No" with "Minimise any" and the addition of "s" to "effect". Given the incorporation of these changes into the plan, the objector has Conditionally Withdrawn the objection. These changes adequately deal with the objection.

Objection : O/71/19/C6 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.4.10) the incorporation of PIC/01/C6.

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 160

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

4.7 POLICY C7 - LISTED BUILDINGS AND S.106 AGREEMENTS:

Explanatory Note: The Council accepts the validity of the objection made and, under PIC/01/C7, proposes to delete, in criterion (b), the words "enter into a legal agreement to", replacing them with the word "will". Further change is proposed by the objector to the reasoned justification suggesting the omission of the word "will" and replacing it with "could" in Para.6/30. This is accepted by the Council as being a reasonable request and deals adequately with the objection.

Objection : O/70/8/C7 GONW

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.4.11) the incorporation of PIC/01/C7;

(REC.4.12) the omission of the word "will" from Para.6/30 of the supporting text and its replacement with the word "could".

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 161

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

4.8 POLICY C8 - PARKS AND GARDENS OF SPECIAL HISTORIC INTEREST:

Explanatory Note: Whilst the Council accepts that cross reference to Policy R14 could be included I have recommended at Section 2.12 that Policy R14 be deleted.

Objections : O/158/8/C8 ENGLISH NATURE O/156/5/C8 LANCASHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST

PBC Response no. : PBC/42

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.4.13) I recommend that no modification be made to the plan in response to this objection.

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 162

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

4.9 POLICY C9 - ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES:

Explanatory Note: The Council agreed that the wording of Policy C9 required substantial revision to make it more effective and that the rigidity of the wording could be replaced with excerpts from para.8 of PPG16. It was also agreed by the Council that reference should be made to the need for high quality fieldwork in the supporting text to the Policy. It was further accepted by the Council that changes should be made to the key to the Proposals Map to replace "Ancient Monument" with "Scheduled Ancient Monument" and to change the "Chingle Hall" asterix to green from black. PIC/01/C9, PIC/02/C9 & PIC/03/C9 adequately address these changes and as a result both GONW and LCC have Conditionally Withdrawn their objections.

Objections : O/129/11/C9 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION O/183/1/C9 LARA MRDO O/623/1/C9 ENGLISH HERITAGE O/623/2/C9 ENGLISH HERITAGE O/623/3/C9 ENGLISH HERITAGE O/623/4/C9a ENGLISH HERITAGE O/70/9/C9 GONW (CW) O/128/9/C9b LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (CW)

OPC/623/12/C9 ENGLISH HERITAGE

PBC Response no. : PBC/43

ISSUES:

4.9.1 Whether:

(i) the policy as drafted represents more of an aim than a land use policy, and should be reformulated: to include a test of acceptability; to include lesser protection for the setting of Scheduled Ancient Monuments than the monument itself; to transfer Paras.3-5 to the reasoned justification; and, to delete the attempt to extract planning gain;

(ii) the policy, at Para.4, should be amended to clarify the reference to in-situ preservation and a mitigation strategy and whether the reference relating to the maintenance of archaeological sites is inappropriate;

(iii) Para.(B) of the policy, as proposed to be changed, understates the purposes of the policy in that it applies only to known sites of interest;

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 163

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(iv) the policy should include reference to heritage roads.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

4.9.2 The policy, as proposed to be changed, makes clear that where the effects of development are adverse such development will be refused. This is consistent with the advice given in para.15 of PPG16 which indicates that the development plan should: "include policies for the protection, enhancement and preservation of sites of archaeological interest and their settings.". Para.27 of PPG16 indicates that "where nationally important remains and their settings are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ". It is also implicit in the wording of the policy that the case for the preservation of archaeological remains must be assessed on the individual merits of each case through individual assessment or evaluation. As such, I consider the policy accords with the advice given in PPG16. Also the reference, within the guidance to the setting of such nationally important remains, makes no distinction as to the weight that should be attached to either the settings or the remains. Consequently, I do not consider that further amendment of the policy is necessary.

4.9.3 However, I have some sympathy with the view expressed that Paras 3-5 of the policy, as proposed to be changed, should be transferred to the supporting text. The policy as drafted attempts to cover too much detail and parts (A) and (B) cover the main development/land use implications related to archaeological features. Paras.3-5, being more related to matters which developers would be expected to have regard to, are better incorporated into the reasoned justification. With regard to Para.5, I also consider that, whilst the Council is of the view the word "expected" does not indicate a "requirement" for developers to enter into legal obligations, the difference in meaning between these two words is marginal. This paragraph should be amended to indicate that the Council will in appropriate cases, "seek to enter into" legal agreements.

Issue (ii)

4.9.4 Having regard to my conclusions above, I consider that the reasoned justification should also be amended to clarify the reference to in-situ preservation and the excavation of remains as part of a mitigation strategy. The need for such explanation is accepted by the Council. It is also accepted by the Council that the word "maintenance" in Para.4 is "misleading" and should be replaced by the word "management".

Issue (iii)

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 164

PRESTON LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

4.9.5 The Council indicate that the PIC incorrectly deleted, at Para.(B), the part of the sentence relating to sites of known or possible archaeological interest. The suggested correction deals adequately with the objection.

Issue (iv)

4.9.6 There is no specific government advice about the use of the local plan policies for the protection of heritage roads and as such I do not consider it appropriate for such protection to be incorporated into the plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.4.14) the amendment of Policy C9 to read:

(A) Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are adversely affected by the proposed development there will be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation and in such cases planning permission will be refused.

(B) When development proposals affect an archaeological site of lesser importance or of known or possible archaeological interest, the Council will require an archaeological assessment/evaluation to be submitted as part of the planning application. Planning permission will not be granted without adequate assessment of the nature, extent and significance of the remains present and the degree to which the proposed development is likely to affect them.

(REC.4.15) the remainder of the policy as set out in the conclusion of PBC/43 being transferred to the reasoned justification with appropriate amendments being made to include: reference to in-situ preservation and the excavation of remains as part of a mitigation strategy; the replacement of the word "maintenance" by the word "management" in para.4; and, the replacement of the word "expected" by the words "seek to enter into" in para.5.

CHAPTER 4 THE CONSERVATION POLICIES 165

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 5 - TRANSPORT

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 164

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.1 OMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORT POLICIES

Explanatory Note: Objection O/133/4/TO made by CNT to the omission of a proposal for a railway station at Lightfoot Lane is considered under Policy T3. Objection O/128/22/TO made by LCC is adequately addressed by PIC/01/TNEW and is Conditionally Withdrawn.

Objections : O/70/76/T0 GONW O/157/3/T0 RDC (CW) O/133/4/T0 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS O/88/3/T0 RAILTRACK PROPERTY O/128/22/T0 LCC (CW)

PBC Response nos. : PBC/114, 114a & 124

ISSUES:

5.1.1 Whether:

(i) the plan should include a new policy supporting the carrying of freight by rail;

(ii) the plan should make reference to the need to support public transport in the rural areas;

(iii) the plan should make reference to the revision of LCC's car parking standards.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

5.1.2 Policy T3 of the DP indicates that the Council will both protect railway lines from development and explore their potential for the development of new bus, rail or guided public transport services. However, this policy deals only with public transport. Moreover, Policies SS21 and SS27, concerning the use of the land at Fletcher Road and at Riversway Phase B, only refer to the possibilities of the use of the railway for freight purposes. Consequently I consider the Council's policy towards such sites and the use of rail for freight transport is unclear. I consider therefore that the plan should include a section, under (A) Transport Infrastructure Policies, on Freight Transport By Rail to draw together and make clear the Council's approach to the proposals made for rail freight under Policies W2, SS21 and SS27.

Issue (ii)

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 165

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.1.3 The plan adequately addresses the question of public transport as far as is possible within a land-use document. Para.7.7 and Policies T17 and T21 could be utilised to facilitate the provision of public transport in rural areas.

Issue (iii)

5.1.4 PIC/01/T19, T20, T21 & T22 all acknowledge the revised LCC parking standards and make clear that, as and when they are adopted by the LCC, such policies would be applied. This meets the objection by GONW.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.1) the inclusion of PIC/01/TNEW;

(REC.5.2) the inclusion of a new section under (A) Transport Infrastructure Policies, on Freight Transport By Rail to draw together and make clear the Council's approach to the proposals made for rail freight under Policies W2, SS21 and SS27.

(REC.5.3) the inclusion of PIC/01/T19,T20,T21 & T22.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 166

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.2 REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR TRANSPORT POLICIES:

Explanatory Note: The objections made to the supporting text of the transport policies by GONW and The Highways Agency are matters of clarification and are all accepted by the Council.

Objections : O/70/64/TX GONW O/70/65/TX GONW O/70/66/TX GONW O/70/67/TX GONW O/70/68/TX GONW O/70/70/TX GONW O/70/71/TX GONW O/132/1/TX HIGHWAYS AGENCY

PBC Response no. : PBC/145

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

5.2.1 None of the objections have implications for the content of the Transport Policies of the plan and should be included for clarification purposes.

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.5.4) I recommend that the plan be modified by the incorporation of the matters of clarification set out on Page 3 of PBC/145.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 167

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.3 POLICY T1 - PUBLIC TRANSPORT - PARK AND RIDE BUS SERVICES:

Explanatory Note: The DP identified, within Policy T1, three sites for the development of park and ride facilities at Preston East, Tom Benson Way - Cottam, and Riversway. PIC/01/T1 and PIC/02/T2 proposed changes to Policy T1 which results in the policy proposing only two sites at Preston East and Riversway. Objection was made to the proposed changes in that PIC/01/T1 had recommended the inclusion of a site at Cottam Hall Brickworks which was subsequently removed by PIC/02/T1.

Objections : O/12/4/T1 BROUGHTON IN AMOUNDERNESS PARISH COUNCIL O/162/1/T1 SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL O/153/6/T1 PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH O/3/1/T1b MR P S CLAPHAM (CW) O/71/6/T1 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/128/10/T1 LCC

OPC/125/2/T1 TRUSTEES COTTAM HALL BRICKWORKS GRAHAM STARKY EST.

PBC Response no. : PBC/122

ISSUES:

5.3.1 Whether the local plan should include proposals for park and ride sites at Broughton and at Cottam Hall Brickworks.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

5.3.2 The 1993 Preston South Ribble Transportation Study identified a requirement for a park and ride site at Broughton to intercept town centre bound traffic on the A6; M55 eastbound and M6 southbound. At the public consultation stage the local plan identified a park and ride site between Tom Benson Way and the M55 south of Broughton (The Broughton Site). Owing to perceived traffic difficulties in the vicinity of the M55 and A6 junction, and the perceived effect of such a proposal on the Preston East site, the Council have proposed the deletion of this site. This course of action is now the subject of objection by the LCC. At the same time as removing the Broughton site the Council proposed the inclusion of a site on the Cottam Hall Brickworks which was subsequently not included because the LCC was not prepared to support such a proposal.

5.3.3 Given the planning history surrounding these sites, the position still remains uncertain and cannot be resolved without further study of the need and inter-relationships that exist between the various proposals. Whilst the Cottam Hall Brickworks site is not located on a major radial route as required under LSP Policy 41, the Council consider that the possibility of shared use of existing proposed car parking facilities should be investigated before the development of a

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 168

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

separate park and ride car park is considered. Such consideration would take place along with the negotiations concerned with a current application for the development of a large car park in conjunction with a food superstore in the vicinity. This again illustrates a level of uncertainty regarding the provision of such facilities. Consequently I consider that Policy T1 should be amended to make clear that further study of the viability of both the Broughton and the Brickworks sites is necessary.

5.3.4 In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the Council's view that the Broughton Site may undermine the prospects for the development of Preston East which I accept has good prospects for the development of a commercially successful service. However, what is not clear is whether a Broughton site would so prejudice the prospects of the Preston East site as to dismiss it from consideration at this stage. In my view, given, the heavily used A6 Garstang road within urban Preston, the traffic approaching Preston from the M55 and the fact that Preston East would seem to satisfy another quadrant of approach to the urban area, I do not consider that a Broughton site should be ruled out at this stage without further detailed study. For this reason I consider the existing Broughton site should be retained within the plan as a site to be further investigated prior to the implementation of the detailed schemes for the Broughton Bypass and the D'Urton Lane Link Road.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.5) the amendment of Policy T1 to read:

"Planning Permission will be granted for the development of park and ride car parks (Bus Based) at the following sites as shown on the Proposals Map:

Preston East Riversway

Further evaluation will be made as to the viability of the following sites as shown on the Proposals Map:

Tom Benson Way, Cottam Cottam Hall Brickworks"

(REC.5.6) the amendment of the supporting text to include the terms of reference by which these sites are to be assessed.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 169

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.4 POLICY T2 - PUBLIC TRANSPORT - BUS PRIORITY MEASURES:

Objection : O/153/5/T2 PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH O/128/11/T2 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL O/161/1/T2 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED (CW)

PBC Response no. : PBC/123 & 128

ISSUES:

5.4.1 Whether:

(i) the route details should be removed to the supporting text;

(ii) Policy T2 should be amended to ensure that bus priority measures are not implemented at unacceptable environmental cost.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

5.4.2 Whilst the Council accepts the need for the re-wording of Policy T2, under PIC/01/T2, it is not accepted that the detail of routes should be deleted as suggested by LCC. The Council considers that the local plan should specify routes which are to be the subject of bus priority measures in that this is supported by Para.4.26 of PPG13. This requirement is felt to be necessary to encourage objectors to specify whether their objection is to the principle of the policy or to a specific route, thereby reducing delays to individual schemes. However, in my view, there is a need to indicate the measures which will be taken to support such bus priority measures.

5.4.3 The Policy, as proposed to be changed, gives no indication of the measures that are proposed. Although the Council considers that the policy infers the management of existing highway space, rather than highway widening, this is not explicitly stated. The problems that can arise without the detail of such measures being specified are exemplified by the local opposition shown concerning the proposals to widen London Road which is one of the routes identified under the Policy. In my view, therefore, Policy T2 should be amended to make clear it is in principle only that bus priority on the identified routes is supported. The explanatory text should make clear the view of the Council as expressed in Para.9.2 of PBC/123. Such a course of action would cover the objections made to the policy.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 170

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.7) the incorporation of PIC/01/T2 subject to the rewording of the second sentence as follows: "... Routes to be considered as being subject to the principle of such bus priority measures include: ...";

(REC.5.8) the supporting text should make clear the Council's views as expressed in Para.9.2 of PBC/123.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 171

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.5 POLICY T3 - PUBLIC TRANSPORT - RAILWAY LINES AND STATIONS:

Objection : O/128/12/T3 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL O/128/13/T3 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL O/156/6/T3 LANCASHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST O/88/1/T3 RAILTRACK PROPERTY O/90/1/T3 CYCLIST TOURING CLUB (NW) O/153/4/T3 PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

PBC Response no. : PBC/124

ISSUES:

5.5.1 Whether:

(i) the extent of land required to be safeguarded for a proposed station at Cottam can be shown on the Proposals Map;

(ii) the plan should include proposals for new stations at Lightfoot Lane, Preston and Station Road, Barton;

(iii) Policy T3 conflicts with Policy T6 in relation to the Grimsargh to Preston railway track;

(iv) Policy T3 should be cross referenced to Policy T6.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

5.5.2 The Council considers that it is unable to delineate the area required for development at Cottam because of the lack of any detailed proposals from Railtrack Property or from the LCC. Whilst this situation has to be accepted, it illustrates to me a poor level of consultation between the parties. It is not for me to determine the reason for this, but I can see no justification as to why the extent of such an allocation cannot be determined between the parties.

Issue (ii)

Lightfoot Lane, Preston

5.5.3 The Council indicate that they would be prepared to re-instate the proposal for a railway station at Lightfoot Lane given evidence that this proposal is realistic and likely to be implemented within the plan period. The proposal was included in the Consultation Draft of the local plan in anticipation that further investigative work would be undertaken before the DP was

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 172

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

prepared. No further work has taken place, nor has the Council been advised of any timescale for the undertaking of a feasibility study. Notwithstanding the inclusion of the proposal in the LSP, without further evidence it is considered by the Council that the proposal should not be included in the local plan at this time.

5.5.4 The LCC indicate that at no stage has the Council approached the LCC for discussions on this issue, nor has the Council produced any evidence against a station in this location. The proposal is within an agreed list of sites of stations to be pursued further with Regional Railways North West and is contained within LSP Policy 35a. Why the Council has not entered into discussions with the LCC again illustrates poor consultation between the parties. No significant reasons have been put forward which illustrate to me that there is not a reasonable expectation of development proceeding within the plan period if a concerted approach is taken on this matter by all parties. As such I consider that the plan should be modified to include a proposal for a station at Lightfoot Lane.

5.5.5 In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account that the proposal involves problems associated with its location on the West Coast Main Line and the fact that the track is in cutting at this point. This only serves to illustrate the need for further appraisal of the situation.

Station Road, Barton

5.5.6 No proposal for a station at this location is among the potential station openings identified in the Leeds University Study into the potential for new railway stations in Lancashire, and it is not included in the list of station proposals in the LSP. In the absence of support from the LCC or the railway industry there is no reasonable expectation that such a proposal could proceed within the plan period.

Issue (iii)

5.5.7 The development of this former railway line as a public transport route would facilitate the successful development of a major park and ride scheme at Preston East (Policy T1). Whilst the current use, and any extended use of the line as a footpath/cycleway, provides a valuable transport and leisure facility, use by public transport could make a much more significant contribution to the achievement of national and local objectives to reduce the reliance on private transport and in tackling the environmental problems associated with traffic growth.

Issue (iv)

5.5.8 The Council acknowledges that the impact of such development on nature conservation would require detailed consideration and accepts the need to add a cross reference to Policy R6 under Policy T3.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 173

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.9) the extent of land required to safeguard the proposed railway station at Cottam being included on the Proposals Map;

(REC.5.9) Policy T3 being amended to include provision for a station at Lightfoot Lane Preston and the extent of land required to safeguard the proposed station being included on the Proposals Map;

(REC.5.9) Policy T3 being amended to include a cross reference to Policy R6 and a suitable explanation being made within the explanatory text to explain the need for such cross reference.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 174

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.6 POLICY T4 - HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS - BROUGHTON BY-PASS:

(See Section 1.3)

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 175

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.7 POLICY T5 - HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS - DISTRIBUTOR ROADS:

Explanatory Note: Objections concerned with the D'Urton Lane Eastway Link Road (Policy T5(a)) are dealt with under my considerations and conclusions concerning the Broughton Bypass Policy T4 at Section 1.3.

Objections : O/46/3/T5 MR M R JACKSON O/208/2/T5a BROUGHTON BYPASS REVIEW GROUP O/153/3/T5a PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH O/128/15/T5a LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL O/179/1/T5c LEGAL AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD O/184/1/T5c ISIS (CW) O/144/1/T5d PRESTON BUS LIMITED O/172/1/T5d AVENHAM TENANTS ACTION GROUP

OPC/179/6/T5 LEGAL AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD

PBC Response no. : PBC/15, 15a, 35 & 126

ISSUES:

5.7.1 Whether:

(i) details of junctions to be improved should be omitted from the policy (Policies T5 (b) & (c);

(ii) the one way system between Grafton Street and the town centre is too circuitous;

(iii) the Tithebarn Street/Avenham Lane Link (Policy T5(d)) will isolate the bus station thereby disrupting operations, adversely affecting safety and exacerbating traffic on Avenham Lane to the detriment of local residents;

(iv) the proposal to make Lune Street two way flow, together with the retention of bus priority measures, has an unacceptable impact on the access/egress to the St George Street Centre and Car Park;

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 176

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.7.2 I agree with the Council that objections to a particular junction improvement scheme would not be likely to prejudice progress on the other schemes listed under this policy. However, to make this clear, the Council might consider numbering the individual schemes under the sub- policy concerned, e.g T5(a)(i) D'Urton Lane; etc.

Issue (ii)

5.7.3 The Council accepts, whilst the route to the eastern side of the town may be circuitous, it is not unreasonable in the context of the policy objectives of the plan and it is considered to be necessary to enable the provision of the bus lane on Fishergate Hill. This route is an important bus priority measure, crucial to the success of the Portway Park and Ride scheme, giving unimpeded access to the edge of the Principal Retail Core and carrying 20 bus routes. The Council also point out that there is a large foodstore and other large stores on Preston Riversway. As such it is not necessary to get to the east of the town for such shopping trips and, in any case, it is not Council policy to encourage retailing outside the town centre. As such I conclude that no action is necessary on this objection.

Issue (iii)

5.7.4 The objection by Preston Bus is not against the principle of a cross town route and, in conjunction with the other measures proposed, it is seen as helping public transport. The problem is seen to be the use of Tithebarn Street as the route for the link. The objection is based on a presumption that the existing priorities at the junction of Tithebarn Street and the Bus Station exit will be changed in favour of traffic on the former. At the inquiry, the LCC in support of the Council, accepted that any change in priority at this exit would result in delays to buses and would clearly be contrary to the spirit of the package of measures which have been produced to provide benefits for public transport over private motor vehicles. The LCC would therefore be opposed to any change.

5.7.5 Whilst it is suggested by the objector that Tithebarn Street will be seen as a barrier between the bus station and the town centre to the detriment of public transport, the bus station is designed with two pedestrian underpasses under this street. As such I do not consider that the objectors view on this matter is justified. Also, the alternative proposal put forward by the objector, for the utilisation of the roads to the east of the Bus Station, ignores the potential for traffic conflict and is not as direct as the local Plan's proposal. Given this situation I find that there is no advantage in such a proposal and consider that the scheme as proposed by the Council should be retained in the plan.

Issue (iv)

5.7.6 PIC/01/T5 and PIC/02/T5 propose the deletion of the junction improvement notation at Corporation St/Ringway. The Council have concluded that results of LCC's Town Centre Traffic Study indicate that the Lune Street 2 way proposal cannot be implemented within the plan

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 177

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

period. As such it is necessary to remove this proposal from the plan. The Council assure the objector that any revised proposal will be the subject of extensive consultation.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.12) the inclusion of PIC/01/T5 and PIC/02/T5;

(REC.5.13) the junctions specified within the policy being given discrete policy numbers; but that no other modifications be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 178

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.8 POLICY T6 - CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS:

Explanatory Note: City Centre Restaurants oppose the extension of pedestrian priority areas on Fishergate. This matter is dealt with in my conclusions and recommendations under Policy T7 (Section 5.9).

Objections : O/128/16/T6 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL O/154/4/T6c RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION O/154/5/T6e RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION O/161/2/T6 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED (CW) O/153/1/T6 PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH O/99/1/T6 FISHERGATE BAPTIST CHURCH

PBC Response no. :PBC/127

ISSUES:

5.8.1 Whether:

(i) details of proposed cycle routes should be removed to the supporting text;

(ii) more concrete and specific proposals for pedestrians and cyclists should be included within the plan;

(iii) the proposed extension of pedestrian priority areas will unacceptably affect the vehicular access to the church for funerals weddings etc;

(iv) the proposed cycle route on Garstang Road north of D'Urton Lane should be deleted.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

5.8.2 LCC supports the inclusion of PIC/01/T6 but maintains its objection to the inclusion of details of proposed cycle routes in the upper case policy. I agree with the Council that objections to a particular scheme would not be likely to prejudice progress on the other schemes listed under this policy. However, to make this clear, the Council might consider numbering the individual schemes under the sub-policy concerned.

Issue (ii)

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 179

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.8.3 The Council point out that the detailed measures put forward by the objector will be considered as part of detailed development control negotiations under Policy T17. The reasoned justification for this policy will be expanded to cover this point and Policy T6 will be cross referenced to Policy T17. Many of the points mentioned by the objectors are points of management, administration, etc which cannot be covered by the Plan. However the Council has given an assurance that information on footpaths would be requested from applicants at the planning application stage and will be addressed by Supplementary Planning Guidance. As such I consider the points raised by the objectors would be adequately covered.

Issue (iii)

5.8.4 Policy 6(b) proposes the extension of pedestrian priority areas within the town centre. Detailed proposals will be taken forward through Traffic Regulation Orders upon which there will be extensive public consultation with owners and occupiers of affected premises. Policy T6 as amended by PIC/01/T6 makes it clear that the overall approach of the Policy is: "to develop a local cycling strategy". I consider that such an approach should be retained in the plan. My conclusions as to the inclusion of detailed proposals for Fishergate are set out in Section 5.9.

Issue (vi)

5.8.5 My conclusions on this issue have to be read in conjunction with my conclusions and recommendations regarding the Broughton Bypass and the Development of Broughton at Section 1.3. I have concluded that the provision should be made within the plan for the Broughton Bypass. Consequently I find no reason to exclude the provision of this cycle route from the plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.14) the inclusion of PIC/01/T6;

(REC.5.15) the detailed schemes specified within the policy being given discrete policy numbers;

(REC.5.16) the expansion of the reasoned justification of Policy T6 to make clear that detailed measures for pedestrians and cyclists will be considered as part of the detailed development control negotiations under Policy T17; but that no other modifications be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 180

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.9 POLICY T7 - TOWN CENTRE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT/PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY PROPOSALS:

Explanatory Note: LCC as highway authority deferred commenting on PIC/01/T7 until it had completed the town centre traffic management study. Subsequent to the traffic management study, the original proposals shown on the Proposals Map have been amended and taken forward as the PIC. Whilst supporting the PIC, additional clarification was sought to be included in the supporting text, by LCC, on the implementation of the scheme. This is produced as Appendix A of PBC/128. As a result of these changes ISIS and City Centre Restaurants have Conditionally Withdrawn their objections.

Objections : O/6/1/T7 LANCASHIRE CONSTABULARY O/128/17/T7 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL O/161/9/T7 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED (CW) O/170/1/T7 PRESTON AND SOUTH RIBBLE PARTNERSHIP O/179/2/T7 LEGAL AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD O/184/2/T7 ISIS (CW) O/171/1/T7 NATWEST GROUP PROPERTY O/190/2/T7 ARGENT GROUP PLC

OPC/161/10/T7 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED(CW) OPC/170/2/T7 PRESTON AND SOUTH RIBBLE PARTNERSHIP OPC/179/7/T7 LEGAL AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD

PBC Response no. : PBC/128

ISSUES:

5.9.1 Whether:

(i) proposals should be pursued to remove vehicular traffic from Fishergate entirely;

(ii) alternative proposals should be included in the plan to reduce or remove general traffic on the western section of Fishergate;

(iii) vehicular access should be retained through Fishergate to the National Westminster bank car park.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

5.9.2 It is the view of the Council, and of the LCC as highway authority, that the full pedestrianisation of Fishergate is neither appropriate nor feasible within the plan period.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 181

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Difficulties have been identified in removing traffic from the western end of Fishergate between Lune Street and Corporation Street involving the need for land acquisition and redevelopment. Moreover, the form and implications of such proposals have not been fully assessed, nor has any consultation been undertaken. These factors alone illustrate to me the uncertainty of such a scheme being able to be implemented in the plan period.

5.9.3 The Council accepts that the retention of bus services on Fishergate can only be achieved at a cost in terms of the environmental quality of the shopping street for pedestrians. This however is considered to be a necessary cost if the wider objectives of national (PPG13 para.4.2) and LSP policy (Policies 31, 32 & 37) in respect of town centres are to be realised in Preston. At present Fishergate accommodates some 21 routes including the Portway Park and Ride service. In order to fully pedestrianise Fishergate all these services would have to be re-located to use Ringway and this would substantially reduce the attractiveness of both conventional and park and ride bus services.

Issue (ii)

5.9.4 Having regard to the difficulties associated with the complete pedestrianisation of Fishergate it seems reasonable, as suggested by the Council and the LCC as highway authority, that initially, only experimental closures should be proceeded with. Such measures are explained in the proposed revisions to the supporting text.

Issue (iii)

5.9.5 The Council recognise the difficulties which may arise and the proposed reasoned justification to the policy provides the assurances sought by the objector.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.17) the acceptance of Policy T7 as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/T7;

(REC.5.18) the inclusion of the revised supporting text to Policy T7 as set out in Appendix A of PBC/128; but that no other modifications be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 182

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.10 POLICY T8 - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT:

Explanatory Note: The objection by City Centre Restaurants has been Conditionally Withdrawn subject to the inclusion of the supporting text to Policy T7. This has been recommended under (REC.5.18).

Objection : O/70/69/T8 GONW O/128/18/T8b LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL O/161/3/T8 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED (CW)

PBC Response no. : PBC/129

ISSUES:

5.10.1 Whether:

(i) reference should be made within the policy to Traffic Regulation Orders;

(ii) motorways should not be included within the primary route definition.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

5.10.2 In the circumstances that the LCC are no longer seeking the deletion of Policy T7 which now has, in the supporting text, reference to Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO), Policy T8 sets out a broader commitment to the removal of non-essential vehicle traffic from the town centre retail core and is cross referenced to T7. As such I do not consider that the additional reference to TRO's is required.

Issue (ii)

5.10.3 The need to make the amendment as suggested by GONW is accepted.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.19) the amendment of Policy T8 to remove motorways from the description of Primary Routes;

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 183

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.11 POLICY T9 - TOWN CENTRE - PUBLIC OFF-STREET CAR PARKING:

Explanatory Note: The objection by City Centre Restaurants has been Conditionally Withdrawn subject to the inclusion of the supporting text to Policy T7. This has been recommended under (REC.5.18).

Objection : O/70/10/T9 GONW O/161/4/T9 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED (CW)

PBC Response no. :PBC/130

ISSUE:

5.11.1 Whether reference should be made within the policy requiring a developer to enter into a planning obligation.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

5.11.2 The Council considers that the words "subject to" provide sufficient qualification to overcome the fact that it cannot require an applicant for a car parking proposal to enter into a Section 106 agreement. In my view however, as written, the policy requires a Section 106 agreement to be entered into. Whilst the Council consider that the imposition of such an agreement is the most effective way of achieving the aims of the policy, the non completion of such an agreement cannot be a reason for the refusal of the development. As such I consider that the paragraph referring to the S.106 agreement should be transferred to the supporting text and amended to make clear that the local planning authority will "seek to enter into an agreement with the developer".

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.20) the transfer of the penultimate paragraph of Policy T9 to the supporting text and its amendment to make clear that the Council will "seek to enter into an agreement with the developer".

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 184

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.12 POLICY T10 - TOWN CENTRE - PUBLIC ON-STREET CAR PARKING:

Explanatory Note: The objection by LCC is met by PIC/01/T10

Objection : O/617/2/T10 HORST DEAN AINSWORTH KEVILL O/128/19/T12 LCC

PBC Response no. : PBC/131

ISSUES:

5.12.1 Whether paragraph T10(b) should be deleted, in that the removal of free on-street car parking will discourage business from the town centre.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

5.12.2 LSP Policy 40 indicates that preference will be given to short-stay parking in town centres by measures including: (i) the introduction of on-street car parking charges. Clearly therefore Policy T10 as proposed to be changed is consistent with this strategic policy. The management of on-street parking space by its reservation for residents or disabled badge holders, or the imposition of parking charges for on-street spaces, has benefit: for the deterrence of visitors unnecessarily driving into the town centre in pursuit of free parking; for meeting the access and mobility needs of disabled people; for assisting the retention and provision of residential accommodation in the town centre, and; in enabling the use of parking charges to fund effective enforcement and the improvement of the quality of off-street parking facilities.

5.12.3 These measures will be more effective in maintaining convenient access to, and the long term vitality and viability of, the Preston Town Centre than would the retention of a limited stock of free-on-street car parking spaces.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.21) the incorporation of Policy T10 as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/T7; but that no other modifications be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 185

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.13 POLICY T11 - TOWN CENTRE PRIVATE NON-RESIDENTIAL CAR PARKING:

Objection : O/617/3/T11 HORST DEAN AINSWORTH KEVILL

PBC Response no. :PBC/132

ISSUES:

5.13.1 Whether Policy T11 should be deleted, in that the imposition of a ban on private non- residential car parking will discourage business in the town centre.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

5.13.2 The objector advocates that plan policies should allow for the development of additional private non-residential parking in association with existing development. LSP Policy 40 requires Preston, along with other large urban authorities, to take measures to reduce the supply of long stay commuter and private non-residential parking. Policy T11 is consistent with this approach and with the Government advice given in PPG6 Para.2.31 which makes clear that: "In town centres, the main need is for parking which serves the centre as a whole, rather than dedicated parking for individual developments.".

5.13.3 The Council does not accept that this policy will be to the disbenefit of the town centre and I share this view. Whilst a liberal attitude towards the provision of private car parking facilities may, in the short term, lead to some additional investment, the cumulative long term effect is likely to perpetuate and exacerbate problems of traffic growth and congestion leading to a deterioration in environmental quality. Moreover the availability of additional long stay car parking facilities would also help to undermine the development and improvement of alternatives to the private car e.g park and ride. Such effects would be contrary to the aims of the plan which seek to reflect both national and strategic LSP policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

(REC.5.22) I recommend that no modification be made to the plan in response to this objection.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 186

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.14 POLICY T12 - PUBLIC CAR PARKING OUTSIDE THE TOWN CENTRE:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/T12 adequately deals with the objection made.

Objection : O/128/19/T12 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (CW)

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.23) the acceptance of Policy T12 as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/T12.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 187

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.15 POLICY T13 - ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WITH REDUCED MOBILITY- BUILDINGS & PREMISES:

Objection : O/70/11/T13 GONW

PBC Response no. : PBC/133

ISSUES:

5.15.1 Whether the policy should acknowledge the extent to which the securing of provision for disabled people can be justified on planning grounds.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

5.15.2 The Council accepts that the word "normally" should be omitted from the policy and propose under PIC/01/T13 to change its wording. It is also accepted that the supporting text to the policy should be expanded to clarify the relationship between planning and building control in respect of the provision of access for the disabled.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.24) the acceptance of Policy T13 as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/T13;

(REC.5.25) the amendment of the supporting text of Policy T13 to clarify the relationship between planning and building control concerning access for the disabled.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 188

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.16 POLICY T14 - ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WITH REDUCED MOBILITY DISABLED BADGE HOLDERS & COMMUNITY TRANSPORT SERVICES:

Explanatory Note: Although the Council, in PBC/134, indicates that there is no PIC regarding this policy, this is not the case. PIC/01/T14 seeks an amendment to the wording of the policy which adequately overcome the objection made by GONW. As such I have accepted this PIC as being the Council's view, notwithstanding that PBC/134 proposes no change to DP Policy T14.

Objection : O/70/12/T14 GONW

PBC Response no. : PBC/134

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.26) the acceptance of Policy T14 as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/T14.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 189

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.17 POLICY T15 - ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WITH REDUCED MOBILITY -PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENTS:

Objections : O/128/20/T15 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL O/70/13/T15 GONW

PBC Response no. : PBC/135

ISSUES:

5.17.1 Whether:

(i) the details in parts (a) to (h) of the policy should be deleted and included in the supporting text;

(ii) the policy is unduly vague and unclear.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

5.17.2 The Council indicates that the elements of design/facilities referred to in points (a) to (h) of Policy T15 reflect the model local plan policy published jointly by the Access Committee for England and the RTPI. Although many of these elements are covered by the LCC code of Practice on Mobility it is considered that including them in upper case policy is a valuable tool in encouraging the provision of improved facilities. LCC set out no good reason why these elements should not be included within the policy. As such I accept that the Council's approach is reasonable.

Issue (ii)

5.17.3 The Council are prepared to accept that the word "ensure" be replaced by "require" in order to meet the objection made. However in that the words "have regard to" refer to a code of practice that includes matters which go beyond land use issues it would be inappropriate that upper case planning policy require adherence to this code. Consequently I consider that the last sentence of the policy serves no useful purpose and should be relegated to the supporting text.

RECOMMENDATION:

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 190

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.27) the amendment of line 1 of Policy T15, replacing the word "ensure" by the word "require";

(REC.5.28) the relegation of the last sentence of the Policy T15 to the supporting text.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 191

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.18 POLICY T16 - MOTORWAY SERVICE AREAS (MSA)

Explanatory Note: In response to an objection by LCC, that the policy failed to recognise the possibility of MSA provision adjacent to an existing junction, the Council proposed under PIC/01/T16 to change this policy. Consequently the LCC objection was Conditionally Withdrawn. Subsequently objections have been made to the PIC and these are dealt with below.

Objections : O/128/21/T16 LCC (CW)

OPC/70/81/T16 GONW OPC/114/19/T16 CPRE

PBC Response no. : PBC/136 & 136a

ISSUES:

5.18.1 Whether:

(i) PIC/01/T16 is too permissive and should include only criteria by which such MSA proposals can be measured;

(ii) PIC/01/T16 should be cross referenced to policy relating to Trunk Roads and that the provision of a full junction 31A is a matter for the Highways Agency (HAg).

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

5.18.2 The Council accepts that some further guidance is required in Policy T16 to safeguard environmental considerations. It is proposed to withdraw PIC/01/T16 and substitute a policy which includes reference to a number of criteria (PBC/136 para.8.1) which would need to be satisfied. These criteria cover the matters suggested by the CPRE. Although the CPRE suggest the removal of the words "will be permitted" from the policy I consider the addition of the criteria to the policy overcomes the need for such a deletion.

5.18.3 The Council further proposes that this policy be cross referenced to a policy on development in relation to trunk roads (PIC/02/TNEW) and that the supporting text make it clear that the provision of a full junction 31A is subject to the agreement of the HAg. Given these amendments I consider the policy adequately covers the objections made. I consider however that the reference in criteria (a) to Annex A of PPG13 should be deleted from the policy and moved to the supporting text where it should be further explained.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 192

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.5.29) by the deletion of Policy T16 and its replacement by the policy set out in Paragraph 8.1 of PBC/136 subject to the removal of the reference made to "Annex A of PPG13" to the supporting text where further explanation of such requirements should be given;

(REC.5.30) such that the supporting text makes it clear that the provision of a full junction 31A is subject to the agreement of the Highways Agency and that the policy be cross referenced to the section on "Development in Relation to Trunk Roads" (PIC/02/TNEW).

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 193

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.19 POLICY T17 - GENERAL TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS:

Objections : O/70/14/T17 GONW O/70/73/T17 GONW O/70/72/T17 GONW O/132/2/T17 HIGHWAYS AGENCY

PBC Response no. : PBC/137

ISSUES:

5.19.1 Whether:

(i) the policy should make reference to the review of car parking standards;

(ii) the use of the phrase "significantly increased levels of motor vehicle traffic" is ambiguous.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

5.19.2 Policies T19-T22, as proposed to be amended, adequately deal with the question of car parking standards. Policy T17(b) as proposed to be amended also makes reference to the adopted standards of the Highways Authority. It is also considered appropriate that (b) be further amended to refer to vehicle parking rather than car parking in order that the policy covers the provision of all forms of vehicle parking including motorcycles.

Issue (ii)

5.19.3 It is proposed to clarify the use of the phrase by making reference in the supporting text to the guidance set out in Annex B para.4 PPG13 and within the IHT Guidelines on Traffic Impact Analysis.

5.19.4 Such action would deal adequately with the objections.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 194

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.31) the acceptance of Policy T17 as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/T17 subject to the substitution of the word "vehicle" for "car" in criterion (b);

(REC.5.32) the clarification of the phrase "significantly increased levels of motor vehicle traffic" by making reference in the supporting text to the guidance set out in Annex B para.4 PPG13 and within the IHT Guidelines on Traffic Impact Analysis.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 195

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.20 POLICY T18 DEVELOPMENT-TRAFFIC GENERATION:

Explanatory Note: The objections made by GONW and the Highways Agency concerning clarification of the position on development in relation to trunk roads is covered by a proposed new policy TNEW under PIC/02/TNEW (see Section 5.23). PIC/01/T18 deletes the phrase "significant increase in levels of traffic" subject of the objection by GONW. Consequently the objections made to this policy are adequately covered.

Objections : O/70/74/T18 GONW O/70/75/T18 GONW O/132/3/T18 HIGHWAYS AGENCY

PBC Response no. : PBC/138

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.33) the incorporation of Policy T18 as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/T18.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 196

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.21 POLICIES T19 - T22 CAR PARKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Explanatory Note: PIC's/01/T19-T22, as proposed to be amended, adequately deal with the question of car parking standards. Objection to the reference in Policy T19 to the negotiation of a commuted sum in lieu of non-residential staff car parking is dealt with together with a separately submitted objection to Policy T23 (see Section 5.22). Further objections are made to the PIC's which I deal with below.

Objections : O/617/1/T19 HORST DEAN AINSWORTH KEVILL O/161/6/T19 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED O/183/5/T19 LARA MRDO O/183/6/T20 LARA MRDO O/70/15/T21 GONW O/183/7/T21 LARA MRDO O/183/8/T22 LARA MRDO O/70/16/T22 GONW (CW)

OPC/617/4/T19 HORST DEAN AINSWORTH KEVILL OPC/161/12/T19 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED OPC/70/79/T21 GONW

PBC Response no. : PBC/139

ISSUES:

5.21.1 Whether:

(i) reference should be made in these policies to vehicle parking rather than car parking;

(ii) the policies are consistent with the advice given in PPG13 as regards the limiting of car parking;

(iii) Policy T21 should include reference to the negotiation of commuted sums and that the word "normally" should be deleted from Policies T20 and T21.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

5.21.2 It is appropriate that Policies T19 - T22 refer, in their title, to car parking in that they deal with the problems associated with car parking and growth in private traffic and introduce

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 197

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

restrictions on the level of car parking provision. Guidance on the provision of car parking for motorcyclists is appropriately covered by the wording of Policy T17 as proposed to be changed.

Issue (ii)

5.21.3 The 10% limit imposed on the provision of private non-residential parking within the defined town centre is in my view consistent with the advice given in PPG13, PPG6 and the policies of the LSP. Whilst not making explicit reference to the need to restrict such parking, paragraphs 1.8, 4.4, & 4.9 of PPG13, as well as para.2.31 of PPG6, all make clear the importance that is attached to local authorities adopting policies which reduce growth in motorised journeys by reducing the reliance on the private car and encouraging alternative means of travel. LSP Policy 40 requires Preston, along with other large urban authorities, to take measures to reduce the supply of long stay commuter and private non-residential parking.

5.21.4 Policies of car parking restraint provide an effective means of achieving the above aims and, as such, I am satisfied that the parking policies are consistent with both Government advice and LSP policy. Although the objector points to para.1.7 of PPG13 it is clear, in that the Council throughout its plan policies are promoting land use policies which support accessibility by public transport, cycleways, pedestrian facilities and other traffic management measures, that car parking restraint forms one element of a coordinated transport policy which is evident throughout the policies of the plan.

5.21.5 Although objection is also made to the inclusion of a reference to the LCC parking standards, the wording used clearly indicates that the Council will incorporate the new standards formally into the local plan pending their adoption by the LCC and does not attempt to confer upon them any status as local plan policy.

Issues (iii)

5.21.6 Policies T17 and T18 set out a firm basis, in appropriate circumstances, for the negotiation of improved public transport facilities or services and/or investment in improved access and facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, either directly or by provision of funding. Policy T18 specifies that trip intensive developments will only be permitted in locations which are conveniently accessible by existing or proposed public transport services. In that the differing characteristics of sites outside the town centre, in respect of their accessibility by other transport modes, do not lend themselves to the more standardised commuted sum policy proposed for the town centre, it is not appropriate that there should be a general requirement that developments outside the town centre make such a contribution. The Council propose, however, that additional reference to the negotiation of contributions in respect of public transport, walking and cycling facilities be included in the supporting text to Policies T18, T19, T20 & T21 (See also my considerations and conclusions concerning Policy T23). Given this course of action I consider that the objections concerning these issues are adequately met.

5.21.7 The Council accepts the deletion of the word "normally" from Policies T20 and T21.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 198

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.34) the acceptance of Policies T19, T20, T21 and T22 as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/T19, PIC/01/T20, PIC/01/T21 & PIC/01/T20 subject to the deletion of the word "normally" from Policies T20 and T21;

(REC.5.35) the amendment of the supporting text to Policies T17, T18, T20 and T21 to make reference to possible contributions.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 199

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.22 POLICY T23 - COMMUTED PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TOWN CENTRE STAFF CAR PARKING PROVISION:

Explanatory Note: Objections made by Legal and General and GONW are Conditionally Withdrawn subject to the incorporation of PIC/01/T23. Further objections are made to the PIC and these are dealt with below.

Objections : O/161/5/T23 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED O/183/9/T23 LARA MRDO O/70/17/T23 GONW (CW) O/70/18/T23 GONW (CW) O/179/3/T23 LEGAL & GENERAL ASSURANCE SOC LTD (CW)

OPC/617/5/T23 HORST DEAN AINSWORTH KEVILL OPC/161/11/T23 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED

PBC Response no. : PBC/143

ISSUES:

5.22.1 Whether:

(i) reference should be made in Policy T23 to vehicle parking rather than car parking;

(ii) Policy T23, and as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/T23, in requiring the payment of commuted sums is ambiguous, too vague and open to exploitation.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

5.22.2 It is inappropriate that Policy T23 refer to vehicles as this would imply cycles and motorcycles as well as car parking facilities. These are not covered by the restrictions on parking provision set out in Policy T19 and it is inappropriate that they should be. Guidance on the provision of car parking for motorcyclists is appropriately covered by the wording of Policy T17 as proposed to be changed.

Issue (ii)

5.22.3 The objector indicates that commuted sum payments were originally perceived for those circumstances where a developer is unwilling or unable physically to provide car parking on site,

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 200

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

such that the commuted sum be used for alternative public long stay parking in the town centre. This ignores the need, which is widely accepted, that land-use and transport policies manage the demand for travel rather than attempting to cater in full for projected future demands for road and car parking space.

5.22.4 Paragraphs 1.8, 4.4, & 4.9 of PPG13, as well as para.2.31 of PPG6, all make clear the importance that is attached to local authorities adopting policies which reduce growth in motorised journeys by reducing the reliance on the private car and encouraging alternative means of travel. LSP Policy 40 requires Preston, along with other large urban authorities, to take measures to reduce the supply of long stay commuter and private non-residential parking. The EM makes clear under LSP Policy 40 that commuted sums may be asked for in the larger urban towns such as Preston. Having regard to the above I am satisfied that the Council's approach is well supported by both Government guidance and LSP policy.

5.22.5 The Council has indicated in its response to objections to Policies T19-T20 that additional references to commuted payments will be made in the supporting text of these policies. I have accepted this to be necessary. In my view such references would only need to include matters that have already been published by the Council, and referring to SPG Note 21 published by the Council but not including it as part of the plan.

5.22.6 Having regard to the above, PIC/01/T23, when read together with Policy T19, makes it quite clear that new development in the town centre will not be permitted to cater for the potential number of car borne work trips which it may generate by an equivalent number of car parking spaces on-site. Policy T23 as proposed to be changed, and elaborated upon in SPG Note 21, provides a clear and logical basis for the negotiation of contributions in lieu of on-site car parking.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.36) the acceptance of Policy T23 as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/T23.

(REC.5.37) the inclusion, within the supporting text to Policy T23, of a reference to SPG Note 21.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 201

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.23 POLICY TNEW - DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO TRUNK ROADS:

Explanatory Note: This new policy was introduced, under PIC/02/TNEW, in response to objections by GONW and the Highways Agency that the plan should include a policy setting out the DoT's policy in respect of development in relation to trunk roads. A minor objection is made by GONW to the wording of the policy which is accepted by the Council leaving only an objection by the NHS Executive to the proposed new policy.

Objections : OPC/71/34/TNEW NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST OPC/70/80/TNEW GONW

PBC Response no. : PBC/64

ISSUE:

5.23.1 Whether the policy is excessively detailed and, as such, should be deleted, the tests it sets out, being more appropriate for inclusion within technical highway guidance.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

5.23.2 For the sake of clarity for developers and others, the plan should include a policy concerning development control on trunk roads as set out in Circular 4/88. The level of detail to be included within such a policy is a matter of the balance between the necessity for clarity and that of over-prescription within the policy. I consider that the proposed new policy, subject to the incorporation of the minor wording changes suggested by GONW, adequately achieves a satisfactory balance.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.38) the acceptance of Policy TNEW Development in Relation to Trunk Roads as proposed to be added under PIC/02/TNEW subject to the reference to "national Trunk or Motorway System" being replaced by "national all purpose trunk or motorway system".

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 202

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

5.24 POLICY TNEW - NEW MOTORWAY JUNCTION 31A:

Explanatory Note: LCC objected to the DP on the grounds that it contained no policy on the completion of the Junction 31A by the addition of north-facing slip roads. The Council indicates it had not included a proposal for a full junction in the DP because no indication had been given by the Highways Agency that its historical objection to such a proposal would be likely to be withdrawn. Indication has now been given by the Highways Agency that it is prepared to look again at the issues. PIC/01/TNEW and PIC/02/TNEW now promote the proposal.

Objections : O/128/22/TO LCC

OPC/175/7/TNEW MORRIS HOMES LTD OPC/703/1/TNEW MR T R BALL OPC/704/1/TNEW MR & MRS M CLARKSON OPC/706/1/TNEW MR & MRS F P ANDERTON OPC/708/1/TNEW MRS I BARTON OPC/709/1/TNEW MR H BAMBER OPC/705/1/TNEW MR & MRS VARLINDEN OPC/710/1/TNEW MR & MRS B HUMPHREYS OPC/711/1/TNEW MRS C PROCTOR OPC/3/4/TNEW MR P S CLAPHAM OPC/707/1/TNEW MR & MRS T HACKETT

PBC Response no. : PBC/64 & 64a

ISSUES:

5.24.1 Whether a policy for the completion of Junction 31A by the addition of north-facing slip roads should be included in the plan having regard to:

the planning history of the proposals the economic and environmental implications of the proposal the effect of the proposals on the adjacent area

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Planning History

5.24.2 Both the Council and the LCC have, since the late 1980's, supported the concept of a full motorway junction at this location as reflected in Policy TRT2 of the PRALP. This was proposed to serve the areas of land proposed for employment use under Policies IND1 and IND2. In 1990 the DoT published the draft scheme and orders in connection with the proposal to widen the M6 to a 4 lane dual carriageway between junctions 30 and 32. LCC, whilst being sympathetic to an objection made by CNT that it did not provide for Junction 31A, did not support the objection as

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 203

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

this would have delayed the widening of the M6. Support was expressed by LCC at the inquiry in 1991 for this junction, notwithstanding the DoT's contention that insufficient room existed between Junctions 31 and 32. A compromise, the existing half junction, was agreed but there was a tacit agreement between the LCC and CNT that the LCC might pursue the provision of north-facing slip roads at a later date.

5.24.3 CNT, because of the effect that the south-facing slip roads would have on Eastway, has entered into an agreement with the LCC to provide funds which may be used to carry out improvements to the local highway network or put towards the provision of north-facing slip roads at Junction 31A. Consequently it is not envisaged, subject to the agreement of the Highways Agency, that any problems should arise in obtaining the necessary funding for the works within the plan period.

Economic and Environmental Implications

5.24.4 The provision of a motorway junction would provide direct motorway access to/from existing and proposed employment sites to the east of the M6 replacing the existing circuitous access through the urban area. It would also improve motorway access to/from the North Preston Employment Area which would encourage the take up of land and the creation of job opportunities. An additional significant benefit of such a junction relates to the provision of easier access to the proposed park and ride site at Preston East.

5.24.5 Such a junction would eliminate the necessity for goods vehicle movements to/from employment sites east of the M6 to pass through the Preston urban area to travel to/from the motorway, either to Junction 31 via Longridge Road, Ribbleton Avenue, Blackpool Road and Brockholes Brow, or to Junction 32 via Longridge Road, Watling Street Road and Eastway. With the exception of Eastway all these roads have housing fronting the highway and heavy traffic both detracts from residential amenity and contributes to traffic congestion and associated environmental problems. Whilst the half junction has addressed the problems of vehicle movements between these employment areas and the origins and destinations south of Preston, it has not done so for those to the north where significant congestion problems exist at the M55/A6 and Eastway/A6 junctions.

5.24.6 Given the above, I consider there are significant economic and environmental benefits that would accrue from the implementation of Junction 31A.

The effect on the Immediate Locality

5.24.7 In the absence of a detailed proposed alignment it is difficult to assess the extent to which properties in the locality might be either directly or indirectly affected. Such a situation appertained at the time of the PRALP Local Plan Inquiry where the Inspector determined that a safeguarding land reservation was justified. However, although consistent with the PRALP, in proposing the completion of the junction, the present proposal is expressed as support for a full junction rather than by safeguarding land for this purpose. As soon as the Highways Agency has

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 204

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

indicated that it will not be opposing the principle of the junction the Council proposes to advertise a suitably worded policy and indicate a safeguarding line on the Proposals Map. In that no objection is made by the Highways Agency to the proposed change, there appears to me to be some likelihood that the position regarding this junction may be resolved. Accordingly I consider, having regard to the above, that the proposed change be accepted.

5.24.8 In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account that any further plan modification would be subject to statutory objection. As such, residents and other objectors would also have the opportunity to pursue objection to a detailed proposal at the later stages of the planning process, as was the case in respect of the scheme for south-facing slip roads.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.5.39) the acceptance of Policy TNEW as proposed to be added under PIC/01/TNEW;

(REC.5.40) the amendment of the Proposals Map as shown under PIC/02/TNEW (Page 35 PIC's January 1997) to indicate the general location of the junction works diagrammatically with a circle.

CHAPTER 5 THE TRANSPORT POLICIES 205

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 6 - DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 6 DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY 206

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

6.1 POLICY DR1 - DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY:

Objections : O/175/3/DR1 MORRIS HOMES LTD O/179/5/DR1 LEGAL AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD O/121/3/DR1 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD O/169/6/DR1 TRUSTEES OF DICKSON ESTATE O/164/6/DR1 P WILSON AND COMPANY O/163/2/DR1 TESCO STORES LIMITED O/129/12/DR1 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION O/116/6/DR1 BELLWAY HOMES LIMITED O/92/5/DR1 WIMPEY HOMES HOLDINGS LIMITED O/89/3/DR1 HOUSE BUILDERS FEDERATION O/71/31/DR1 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/70/19/DR1 GONW

PBC Response no. : PBC/55 & 26d

ISSUES:

6.1.1 Whether:

(i) Policy DR1 is superfluous, having regard to the provisions of Circular 1/97;

(ii) the policy as written is not clear, succinct or easily understood and does not comply with Government guidance.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

6.1.2 Objectors argue that Policy DR1 is superfluous given the guidance set out in Circular 1/97. I have some sympathy with this view in that the plan already contains a series of specific policies which make clear where the Council are likely to seek planning obligations and to which particular types of development they would be related. The Council suggests that the importance of Policy DR1 is in signposting, through the "Other related policies of the plan", the reader of the local plan from the general approach to a whole range of policies requiring some form of developer contribution. In my view however, this is an unnecessary duplication which could lead to confusion. Although the Council considers that Policy DR1 gives a clear view of its general approach, this approach would need to be framed in the terms of Circular 1/97. Any attempt to incorporate the provisions of this Circular in a single general policy is unnecessary and would be likely to lead to confusion in the readers mind, given the more specific planning obligation policies already set out within the plan.

CHAPTER 6 DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY 207

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

6.1.3 Moreover, DP Policy DR1 is not related, other than by cross references, to particular types of development or to specific development sites as required in Paras.B16 and B17 of the Circular. As such I consider that Policy DR1 should be deleted. In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account suggestions by HBF to amend the policy which sought the inclusion of the words "where appropriate" and the revised wording put forward by the NHS Executive. However, having regard to my conclusions above I do not consider there to be a need for such a general policy within the plan. In my opinion, as suggested by Tesco Stores Ltd, reference of a general nature to planning obligations should be made under the "Development Responsibilities" part of "The Plan Strategy" to the advice contained in PPG12 and Circular 1/97 in respect of the circumstances when planning obligations will be appropriate.

Issue (ii)

6.1.4 Objectors point to the references made within the DP policy to "planning gain", the provision of "indirect" infrastructure requirements of the development, and the need compensate "to overcome planning loss". These references are considered to have no basis in planning legislation or guidance and, as such, should not be used in the plan. The term "planning gain" is not used within Circular 1/97 and although the Council indicates that the term "planning obligation" refers to items of "gain" once they are embodied in Section 106 agreements, I consider that the use of this term is both misleading and not supported by national guidance. In my view the term "gain" could imply the provision of a facility that goes beyond the enhancement of the quality of the development and enabling proposals to go ahead which might otherwise be refused. In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account that the term is still used in the "Encyclopedia of Planning Law" but I consider its use as part of a local plan policy would be inappropriate.

6.1.5 Reference to the provision of "indirect" infrastructure requirements of the development is, in my view, directly contrary to the provisions of Circular 1/97 which makes clear that planning obligations should only be sought which are directly related to the proposed development. Although the Council considers that this aspect of the policy is intended to direct the reader to the full effects of impacts on infrastructure as a reasonable material consideration, in my opinion it is contrary to the provisions of the Circular in that the requirements of the policy are excessive.

6.1.6 The term "to overcome planning loss" is used in the third paragraph of the policy. This is the subject of several objections, both to the policy and to Para.8/11 of the supporting text. Objection is made that this appears to be an arbitrary device to enable the Council to secure obligations where it decides that development does not pay for the "full consequential infrastructure", there being no attempt to limit these consequential effects to those relevant to the planning process. Whilst the Council considers this to be mistaken, in that the objector has not given due recognition to the words "related" in the first paragraph of the policy, "fair and reasonable" in the second paragraph and "compensate" in the third paragraph I consider the term, and the whole of paragraph three, is both unclear and ambiguous. The objector's conclusion, that the policy could be seen to introduce a new reason for seeking planning obligations, i.e. to

CHAPTER 6 DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY 208

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

overcome planning loss, which is not covered by Circular 1/97 or statute, is reasonable given the ambiguous wording of both the policy and Para.8/11. I reach this conclusion notwithstanding that the Council refers to the acceptance of compensation for planning loss by another Inspector. Such a reference, however, pre-dates the latest Government guidance set out in Circular 1/97 and therefore I give it little weight.

6.1.7 Whilst the Council consider that the policy wording of the third paragraph seems "clear enough" I share the view of the objectors that it is, at the least, unclear and confusing. Similarly whilst the Council consider that para.8/11 of the supporting text, "may benefit from some expansion and clarification", this paragraph and paragraph three of the policy are so unclear and imprecise that they should be deleted.

6.1.8 I conclude, therefore, on this issue that the policy, as written, is neither clear, succinct nor easily understood. Furthermore, my conclusions, when taken together with my conclusions on issue (i) above, reinforce my view that this policy should be deleted.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.6.1) by the deletion of Policy DR1;

(REC.6.2) such that a general reference to planning obligations be included under the "Development Responsibilities" part of "The Plan Strategy" to include reference to the advice contained in PPG12 and Circular 1/97 in respect of the circumstances when planning obligations will be appropriate.

CHAPTER 6 DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY 209

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 7 - HOUSING AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS

Explanatory Note:

Matters concerning the general allocation of housing sites and those concerned with the specific allocation of sites under Policy H2 are dealt with within Chapter 1 of my report "The Development Strategy"

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 210

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.1 POLICY H1 - DENSITY OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT:

Explanatory Note: Although objection was made to Policy H1 by Mr M Connolly under O/100/2/H1 this is not an objection to Policy H1 and as such has been dealt with under Policy R2.

Objections : O/169/5/H1 TRUSTEES OF DICKSON ESTATE O/121/4/H1 REDROW HOMES LANCASHIRE LTD O/92/2/H1 WIMPEY HOMES HOLDINGS LIMITED O/89/6/H1 HOUSE BUILDERS FEDERATION O/71/9/H1 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST (W) O/116/3/H1 BELLWAY HOMES LIMITED

PBC Response no. : PBC/66

ISSUES:

7.1.1 Whether the plan-wide application of density policy is unduly onerous, unreasonable and unjustified.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

7.1.2 Para.21 of PPG3 indicates that: "local plans may include policies on densities of new housing in particular areas allocated for development.". It also goes on to state: "They should also permit reasonable flexibility in individual cases in view of the different characteristics of particular sites and the need for a range of housing types at varying price levels.". PPG13 indicates that: "At the local level, through their local plans local authorities should ...... - concentrate higher-density residential development near public transport centres, or alongside corridors well served by public transport (or with the potential to be so served) and close to local facilities; - set standards to maintain existing densities and where appropriate increase them; and ....".

7.1.3 The Council considers that although the policy could be applied on a plan wide basis, in reality it will only apply to sites larger than 0.4ha allocated under Policies H2 and H3 and those which fall to be determined under H4. Furthermore it is considered that, as it cannot be applied retrospectively to sites which have planning permission either in the normal way or through the New Towns Act, opportunities to secure more sustainable development have already been lost. It is considered therefore that higher densities on other sites covered by Policies H2, H3 & H4 will reduce the amount of land required by any given amount of development. Furthermore it is felt that the plan, in attempting to allocate land in accordance with the sustainability principles indicated in PPG13, will help the national move towards tackling issues concerned with public transport, energy efficiency and demographic trends towards smaller households.

7.1.4 Whilst I accept that the above may be consistent with the principles outlined in PPG3 and PPG13 and that the criteria attached to the policy give considerable amount of flexibility, I find it

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 211

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

surprising that the Council's allocated sites under Policy H2 only average 23.4 dwellings/ha and the two largest allocations at Whittingham B and C only average about 20 dwellings/ha. Given also that the majority of new dwellings sites are likely to be produced from sites allocated under Policy H2 I consider that Policy H1 is not consistent with the provisions of Policy H2. Few dwellings are forecast to be produced under Policy H3 and provision is more likely to made be from small sites not subject to Policy H4. Consequently whilst I do not, because of the considerable amount of flexibility inherent in the criteria, consider the policy too onerous I conclude that Policy H1 is superfluous and should be deleted.

7.1.5 In reaching this conclusion I am also mindful that the Council has not attempted to specifically define the areas suitable for high or low density. In my view it is unrealistic to attempt to impose a higher density across the plan area in the name of sustainability without paying due regard to the suitability of the character and appearance of particular areas within the plan to absorb higher densities. Therefore, in that there is little analysis within the plan of the character of such areas, I have little confidence that the application of such a blanket policy has been sufficiently justified by the Council and, as such, is unreasonable.

RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.7.1) the deletion of Policy H1

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 212

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.2 POLICY H2 - HOUSING ALLOCATIONS: GENERAL

Explanatory Note: Matters concerning the general allocation of housing sites, as well as those concerned with the specific allocation of sites under Policy H2, are dealt with within Chapter 1 of my report "The Development Strategy"

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 213

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.3 POLICY H3 - URBAN HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES:

Explanatory Note: With respect to the objections made to the application of this policy, although I deal below with each objection site individually, I have felt it necessary to deal first with the general matters associated with the Policy H3. I set out my recommendations following the consideration of the objections to the individual sites.

Objections : O/166/5/H3l ARROWCROFT NW LTD O/166/6/SSO ARROWCROFT NW LTD O/166/1/H3 ARROWCROFT NW LTD O/160/5/H3h CLLR S NATHA O/160/6/H6 CLLR S NATHA O/160/7/H12 CLLR S NATHA O/43/1/H3m ENGLISH WELSH AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY LTD O/43/2/SS21 ENGLISH WELSH AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY LTD O/88/2/SS21 RAILTRACK PROPERTY LTD O/70/57/SS21 GONW O/159/1/H3q ZABOU CLOTHING COMPANY LTD O/203/4/H3 ARLINGTON PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

PBC Response no. :PBC/20, 20a, 24, 24a, 68, 110 & 116

******************************

7.3.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS - POLICY H3

7.3.1.1 The Council indicates that Policy H3 will only be applicable after existing uses on the particular sites cease and poses no threat to existing uses which continue to operate. The Council agreed in their "Report on Public Consultation" that the future of these sites is uncertain but considered that this should not prevent the local plan setting a policy for their preferred use should any change arise. Whilst I accept that it is, as the Council states: "perfectly reasonable and usual for the planning system to pre-determine the alternative uses of sites which are currently operational within the plan area" it is also necessary for the authority to ensure that in allocating sites there is a reasonable expectation of development proceeding. Para.46 of PPG1 indicates that "and those (sites) which are no longer considered appropriate for their existing or proposed use should be re-allocated to other, more realistic uses.".

7.3.1.2 The supporting text for Policy H3 indicates that the Council examined and reviewed significant parts of the urban area which are presently in non-residential use and identified sites which, appropriately, could be developed for housing in the future if their present uses were present use were discontinued for any reason. In remaining anxious that inner urban area urban housing sites are in a minority it is also concerned that opportunities for inner area housing developments are not missed through allocations purely reflecting existing uses. The Council

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 214

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

accept however that there could be no contribution at all from these sites to the housing stock and, as such, they should only be regarded as potential windfall sites.

7.3.1.3 There is no significant evidence before me which indicates that the Council has examined or investigated whether the opportunity sites outside its control are likely to remain in their existing use or whether it is likely that the existing use rights will be discontinued. As such it seems to me that such a policy could have restrictive consequences for the operation and consolidation of existing businesses and uses on the sites due to their re-allocation for an unrealistic housing use. Moreover the Council has not determined whether there is a reasonable expectation of them proceeding to be developed for housing.

7.3.1.4 Given the above, and the fact that the achievement of the LSP housing requirement is not now considered to rely on the implementation of these sites for housing, I consider that the implementation of the sites set out under Policy H3 represents little more than hope on the part of the Council and that the specification of detailed housing allocations for these sites serves little purpose. As such I consider that, apart from the sites within its control, or those agreed with the land owner as being likely to be implemented, all of the other sites which cannot be designated as non-conforming, (see section 7.9), should be deleted from the policy and designated under their existing use on the Proposals Map.

******************************

7.3.2 NORWEB DEPOT, LANCASTER ROAD - SITE 12

Explanatory Note: Objection is made to the identification of the objection site as an Urban Housing Opportunity Site under Policy H3 and to its omission from identification as a Site Specific Policy Area. In that they are related to each other I deal with both these objections here.

ISSUE:

7.3.2.1 Whether the objection site should be designated as a Policy H3 Urban Housing Opportunity Site or re-designated to a Site Specific Policy Area having regard to its established use as depot/office/workshop facility and its commercial development potential.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

7.3.2.2 The Council does not seek to justify the proposed allocation of the objection site as an Urban Housing Opportunity site. In response to the objector's assertion that "only part of the site to the east of the Protected Transport Route which affects the site may be available for residential development", it only suggests: that this would not accord with the policy's requirement for comprehensive schemes for redevelopment; that it regards the site as an appropriate candidate for Policy H3; and that its redevelopment for housing, should the existing us discontinue, would make a valuable contribution to the inner area housing stock. I do not consider that these matters

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 215

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

provide good justification for the imposition of the re-allocation of the site for housing given the current operational uses of the site which appertain. The Council give no indication that the current use of the site is so unsatisfactory as to warrant its re-allocation for housing.

7.3.2.3 I have some sympathy with the Council's view that inner urban housing sites are in short supply and that opportunities should not be missed where the most acute forms of housing need arise. However, given the existing operational uses of the site, there appears to me to be little prospect of the whole of the objection site coming forward without a greater willingness on the part of the owners. Whilst I have had regard to the fact that the objector has indicated that the site may be declared surplus to requirement, at least in part, during the course of the plan period, this seems to me to be very uncertain and likely to be dependent on the acceptance by the Council of what it considers to be an unacceptable mix of uses. Moreover the Council in defining Policy H3 sites has not considered their contribution to the housing requirement as being essential.

7.3.2.4 The objector considers, in making objection to the exclusion of the site from a Site Specific Policy Area, that appropriate alternative uses for the site would be: Retail (A1 and A3), Residential (C3) and Leisure (D1 and D2). In suggesting these uses as being appropriate the objector points to Para.11/46 of the DP which indicates the Moor Lane Retail Warehouse area, immediately to the north of the objection site, represents an appropriate location for retail warehouse development.

7.3.2.5 The Council point out that the area to the north is the subject of PIC/03/SSNEW which creates a new Site Specific Area where redevelopment will be permitted for one of either Business (B1) and/or Residential C3 or Retail Warehousing, providing that the whole site is developed comprehensively. However in this case I accept the Council's assessment, there being no retail assessment put forward by the objector, that the local plan allocates two and a half times the requirement for retail warehousing. Consequently taking into account the site to the north, the objectors proposal would lead to an undesirable consolidation of retail warehousing in this area. Furthermore major A3 and D1/D2 uses are not, due to the possible disturbance to residential amenity are not appropriate in this area. As such I do not consider the site should be allocated for the uses proposed by the objector.

7.3.2.6 In reaching this conclusion, however, I find it surprising that the Council has proposed under PIC/03/SSNEW, redevelopment for retail warehousing as being an acceptable use on the adjacent site. In my view both the objectors site and the new site specific site to the north are of similar character and would be located adjacent to existing or proposed residential development. Furthermore both sites would illustrate similar characteristics when subjected to the sequential test set out in PPG6. In this respect it is doubtful whether the proposed new site could be justified under this test to any greater extent than could the objection site. In my view there is no justification for either site to be allocated within the plan for uses which would consolidate any existing retail warehousing use in the area.

******************************

7.3.3 ARGYLL ROAD DEPOT - SITE 8

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 216

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Explanatory Note: This site is in the ownership of the Council. The objector has made objections to Policies H3(h), H6 and H12. As all of these objections relate to this site I deal with them together. With regard to the objection made to Policy H12, as this relates to matters concerning SPG which are not before me, this objection has consequently been Withdrawn.

ISSUES:

7.3.3.1 Whether in relation to this site:

(i) Policy H3 should include specific reference to community facilities, play areas or open space;

(ii) Policy H3 should be excluded from the provisions of Policy H6.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

7.3.3.2 The Argyle Road site is presently occupied as a depot by both Preston Bus and by the Council's Works Department. The local plan proposes under Policy H3 that, if the present uses can be successfully relocated, the site should be developed for housing. Such redevelopment is seen by the Council to be likely to make a significant local environmental improvement and would be required to incorporate the appropriate levels of greenspace and play area provision. A community centre is considered an appropriate use to be accommodated within such an area but is not considered to be the function of the local plan to make such small scale allocations.

7.3.3.3 Given this situation, and the fact that the uses suggested by the objector are subordinate to the main use of the site as a residential area, I consider that it is unnecessary for a site specific policy to be applied to the site. However at the inquiry it was accepted by the Council that there is a need to redress the balance of provision of greenspace, as highlighted by the Greenspace Audit, in the inner urban areas as against the provision in the outer areas. This however becomes a matter of balance between the provision of new housing within the inner areas as against a greater open space provision in such areas.

7.3.3.4 Whilst it would be impractical to consider that Policy H3 sites could redress the balance of open space provision in the inner urban areas I can see no reason why reference could not be made within the supporting text to Policy H3 of the need for additional greenspace in the inner urban areas. Whilst I do not consider that I should recommend any specific level of open space provision for the site, in that the Argyle Road site is owned by the Council, opportunity exists for the Council to consider in more detail the open space needs of the site having regard to the catchment area approach suggested under Policy G10.

Issue (ii)

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 217

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.3.3.5 The objector proposes that the Argyle Road site should be excluded from the provisions of Policy H6 (Affordable Housing) such that the housing provided would be for sale rather than being related to the allocation from the housing waiting list. The assurance requested cannot be given through the local plan policies since it does not relate to land use or planning matters. The problem of lack of affordable housing in Preston is considerable and such that no opportunity should be lost to increase provision, particularly in the inner urban areas where demand is greatest. Exclusion of the site from the provisions of Policy H6 cannot therefore be recommended. The Council point out however that the policy does not restrict the level of properties for sale.

******************************

7.3.4 DEEPDALE STREET/FLETCHER ROAD COAL YARD

Explanatory note: Objections are made to the Council's proposals for two parts of this site. These relate to the proposed allocation of the northern part of the site under Policy H3 and to the allocation of the southern part of the site under Policy SS21. I deal with these objections together. PIC/01/SS21 proposes a change to the wording of Policy SS21 to include reference to sui-generis rail related uses which make effective use of the railway line and provide clarification to the policy. As a result of this PIC, GONW have conditionally withdrawn its objection and Railtrack have no objection to the PIC as far as the inclusion of the sui-generis rail related use. PIC/02/SS21 proposes the inclusion of the proposed public transport route within SS21.

ISSUES:

7.3.4.1 Whether:

(i) the proposed use of the northern part of the site for housing under Policy H3 is appropriate, having regard to the ownership of the site and the nature of the uses likely to be accommodated on the southern site;

(ii) whether Policy SS21 which relates to the southern part of the site should be amended to include provision for retail warehousing.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

7.3.4.2 Whilst the Council makes clear that the policy will only be applicable after existing uses on the site cease and development proposals are brought forward, it is also recognised that the resumption of a use which had temporarily ceased could take place without the need for planning permission. Although Policy H3 poses no threat to existing uses which continue to operate, in my view, apart from the need as expressed in PPG 13 to safeguard transport routes, there has to be a reasonable expectation that the policy could be implemented within the plan period.

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 218

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.3.4.3 The English, Welsh and Scottish Railway limited, who hold the site on a 125 year lease, indicate that there is a possibility that the use of part of the yard covered by Policy H3 may be required for the on-going use of a coal yard in association with rail borne coal traffic. Railtrack plc confirm that they have received an approach from this company concerning the condition of the railway infrastructure leading to the former Deepdale Depot (the objection site) with a view to its future use for rail traffic. Given this situation and the fact that Railtrack's objection was only made to cover the position should the rail service cease I consider that the likelihood of the existing use rights being abandoned are remote.

7.3.4.4 Furthermore should the use of the adjacent site for sui-generis rail related uses, which also may include rail borne coal traffic, be continued, I consider that the designation of the policy H3 site for housing is inappropriate due to the possible disturbance being caused. Whilst the Council disputes that such disturbance will be caused, and that mitigating design measures could be introduced to reduce the effect of lightly used railways there is no evidence to suggest that the re-use of the southern portion of the yard for rail freight would be so light as to be able to be mitigated. Consequently for the above reasons I consider that the use of the site under Policy H3 should be deleted.

7.3.4.5 Policy SS21, as proposed to be changed, allows the development of the site for B1, B2, B8 or sui-generis rail related uses if effective use is made of the railway line for the transport of goods and for B1 or B2 uses provided land is safeguarded to provide vehicular access on the closure of the railway line between the disused line and the highway network. Government guidance at para.5.36 PPG12 indicates that consideration should be given to the potential of disused railway track beds and LSP Policy 24 aims to protect disused railway line from development. Consequently as, under policy T3, the Council intend to explore the potential for development of new bus, rail or guided transport services I consider it to be fitting that Policy SS21 relates development to the use of the railway line.

7.3.4.6 However, development of the whole of the two parts of the objection site depends on whether the railway is continued to be used for freight, or for a light passenger railway or pedestrian/cycle facility. Re-use of the southern part of the site for rail freight purposes would conflict with the provision of housing on the site whereas use of the railway as a light rail facility would in my opinion allow the development of the whole area for housing. The Council's approach towards these two areas under Policies H3 and SS21 is confused and does not pay sufficient regard to the effects of one proposed adjacent use on the other. As such I consider that, until matters concerning the use or abandonment of the railway use are resolved, Policy SS21 should be deleted and the existing use retained on the Proposals Map. At that time I consider an approach could be adopted to deal comprehensively with the whole site.

Issue (ii)

7.3.4.7 Notwithstanding my conclusions above, I have considered whether it would be appropriate for Policy SS21 to include provision for retail warehousing. Prior to decisions being made concerning the use of the railway, any proposal for allowing retail warehousing would involve the loss of a potential employment site contrary to Government advice given at para.3 PPG13. Moreover the Council points to the Lee Donaldson Report which demonstrates that the

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 219

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

local plan allocates two and a half times the requirement for retail warehousing. The objection site is also an out of centre site which is considered by the Council to be likely to compete with the town centre, the vitality and viability of which the local plan policies seek to protect. As the objectors have not carried out any retail assessment of the site I consider the Council's assessment provides the only substantive evidence concerning this use. As such I do not consider that retail warehousing use is appropriate for inclusion within Policy SS21 should this policy be retained in the plan.

******************************

7.3.5 SHELLEY ROAD - SITE 17

ISSUES:

7.3.5.1 Whether the objection site should be designated as a Policy H3 Urban Housing Opportunity Site

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

7.3.5.2 The objector appears to occupy a site immediately to the south of Site 17 which is shown on the Proposals Map as committed housing having the benefit of planning permission for housing. In that the objectors seemingly purchased their site in June 1996 after the planning permission for housing was granted in July 1995 the Council accepts that it looks probable that housing development will not take place. The Preston Inner Areas Local Plan showed the site to be within a major employment area.

7.3.5.3 Objection is made that the designation of Site 17 under Policy H3 would limit their expansion. However, although requesting that the adjacent E5 allocation should be extended to Site 17, it appears from the information given by the objector that their own operations would not be appropriate within an E5 allocation which restricts development to B1 and small scale B8 uses.

7.3.5.4 This being said, the site is currently in operation and, given its close relationship to the objector's business, it appears to me that residential development of the site could neither be guaranteed nor would it be compatible with the objector's business. Consequently having regard to the fact that the site is closely related to existing business uses I consider that the site should be excluded from policy H3 and redesignated as an existing primarily business and industrial area.

******************************

7.3.6 BAE BROADGATE SPORTS GROUND OMISSION OF SITE FROM POLICY H3

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 220

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

ISSUE:

7.3.6.1 Whether the objection site should be redesignated under Policy H3 as an Urban Housing Opportunity Site.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

7.3.6.2 The Council's policy stance in respect of the objection site, and other similar open spaces, is set out in Policy G3. This policy protects private, educational or institutional greenspace and precludes the development of it unless certain criteria are met. It derives from Policy ENV3 of Preston Inner Areas Local Plan and the wording of it was the result of debate at inquiry. As such I consider, had it been felt necessary to include any commitment in the Preston Inner Areas Local Plan, that this wording would have been incorporated into that plan.

7.3.6.3 However, notwithstanding the above conclusion, proposals for housing development on this, or any other similar site, would be considered in relation to Policy G3 and under Policy H4 and its criteria c,d,e and f. Consequently, the Council would not wish to see the site to be redeveloped for primarily residential use but would wish to see the greater part of it being retained as recreational or amenity greenspace. It is not appropriate, therefore, that the objection site should be included as a Policy H3 Site.

******************************

7.3.7 LAND AT GAMMUL LANE - OMISSION OF SITE FROM POLICY H3

ISSUE:

7.3.7.1 Whether the objection site should be redesignated under Policy H3 as an Urban Housing Opportunity Site.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

7.3.7.2 The objection site is already included within the plan as a committed approval and is shown within the plan as being within an existing primarily residential area. This site is presently unused and the acceptability of residential use has already been established with the planning permission. It is not appropriate for designation under Policy H3.

******************************

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 221

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS - POLICY H3

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.7.2) such that, apart from the sites within the Council's control, or those agreed with the land owner as being likely to be implemented, all of the other sites should be deleted from the policy and designated on the Proposals Map under a designation appropriate to their existing use;

(REC.7.3) by the deletion of Policy SS21 and the site designated on the Proposals Map under a designation appropriate to its existing use;

(REC.7,4) by the inclusion, within an appropriate part of the supporting text of the plan, of reference to the need for additional greenspace in the inner urban areas; and that

(REC.7.5) the Council reconsider the incorporation of PIC/03/SSNEW.

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 222

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.4 POLICY H4 - HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE ALLOCATED AREAS:

Explanatory note: As a result of PIC/01/H4, objections made to the DP by English Nature and the Lancashire Wildlife Trust were Conditionally Withdrawn. Subsequent to the receipt of the objection to the proposed change by MAFF the Council has withdrawn PIC/10/H4. I deal with the objections made by English Nature and the Lancashire Wildlife Trust to the DP as originally submitted.

Objections : O/203/5/H4 ARLINGTON PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED O/155/2/H4 RSPB O/158/9/H4 ENGLISH NATURE (CW) O/156/7/H4 LANCASHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST (CW) O/153/22/H4e PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH O/153/23/H4f PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

OPC/168/14/H4 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

PBC Response no. : PBC/69

ISSUES:

7.4.1 Whether:

(i) a definition of what is considered to be "necessary infrastructure" and "unacceptable" is required and that the reference to infrastructure provision should include priority for public transport and cycleways;

(ii) reference to policy D12(c) should be deleted and the policy should indicate that preference will be given to proposals which provide design details;

(iii) reference should be made within the policy to sites of nature conservation value;

(iv) a further criterion should be added to the policy to indicate "(g) the retention or enhancement of private, educational or institutional greenspace through the residential development of a small part of the site".

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

7.4.2 The words "necessary" and "unacceptable" are commonly used within planning policy and are, in my view, correctly used by the Council within Policy H4. The necessary infrastructure is that required to implement development and allow it to function on completion. The

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 223

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

unacceptability of any impact is normally determined by the decision maker having regard to all material considerations. To further define these words is unnecessary. 7.4.3 Whilst many of the policies of the local plan aim to promote and facilitate greater use of public transport and means of travel other than the private car, to require similar measures to be incorporated in proposals for housing, irrespective of their scale, may impose an unreasonable burden on prospective developers.

Issue (ii)

7.4.4 Applications for development are often made in outline. These applications can usually be determined without much design detail which can be left as a reserved matter to be decided at the detailed application stage. Reference is made under "Other Related Policies of the Plan" to Policy D12 which sets out the design policies of the plan. Although objection is made that D12(c) may encourage private car usage, the criterion makes reference only to the need to provide adequate provision for vehicular access and parking in accordance with other transport policies of the plan which are not objected to by the objector. The design policies of the plan exert sufficient control over the materials to be used. Further control through this policy is unnecessary.

Issue (iii)

7.4.5 There are a number of considerations to be taken into account of which nature conservation is only one. Since there are other policies in the plan which safeguard the nature conservation interests, it is therefore unnecessary to specifically refer to nature conservation within this policy.

Issue (iv)

7.4.6 The Council's policy stance in respect of the Broadgate Sports Ground and other similar open spaces is set out in Policy G3. The additional criterion suggested is unnecessary and superfluous.

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.7.6) I recommend that no modification be made to the plan in response to the above objections to the DP but that PIC/01/H4 not be incorporated into the plan.

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 224

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.5 POLICY H5 - HOUSING OVER SHOPS:

Explanatory Note: In response to the objection made by GONW that the policy is ambiguously worded, the Council under PIC/01/H5 proposed a rewording of the Policy which adequately dealt with the objection. This led to the objection being Conditionally Withdrawn.

Objection : O/70/20/H5 GONW (CW)

RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.7.7) the incorporation of PIC/01/H5.

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 225

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.6 POLICY H6 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING:

Explanatory Note: The DP was produced by the Council before Circular 13/96 "Planning and Affordable Housing" was issued. The objectors (set out below) refer to this Circular and consider that Policy H6 should be amended to reflect its provisions. The Council has recognised that the DP Policy H6 does not in accord with the provisions of this Circular and proposes, under PIC/01/H6, to amend Policy H6 to take account of its provisions. Although CNT conditionally withdrew its objection, both GONW and NHS considered the proposed changes to be insufficient. Specific objections to other matters raised by objectors in relation to affordable housing are also dealt with below.

Since the closure of the Inquiry, new and revised advice has been published in Circular 06/98 "Planning and Affordable Housing". Whilst I have taken this new advice into account in making my recommendations on the objections received, the Council will need to have regard to this Circular in the consideration of my report.

Objections : O/70/21/H6 GONW O/71/13/H6 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/89/7/H6 HOUSE BUILDERS FEDERATION O/92/4/H6 WIMPEY HOMES HOLDINGS LIMITED O/175/5/H6 MORRIS HOMES LTD O/116/5/H6 BELLWAY HOMES LIMITED O/133/2/H6 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS (CW)

OPC/70/78/H6 GONW OPC/71/33/H6 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST

PBC Response no. : PBC/24, 26 & 70

ISSUES:

7.6.1 Having regard to Circular 13/96 (and as revised by Circular 06/98): whether the Council has properly demonstrated the justification for Policy H6; whether the plan should set indicative targets for specific sites; whether it should be made clear within the policy that such housing should only be sought where the site is suitable for such purposes; and, whether the supporting text of the plan should be amended to acknowledge the Circular.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

The Need for Affordable Housing

7.6.2 The NHS Executive North West and Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd consider that the justification for Policy H6 is inadequate in that the Council appears not to have undertaken any assessment of the needs for affordable housing of the type set out in Circular 13/96. Para 9/62 of the supporting text of the plan suggests that some 2500 dwelling units should be provided in the form of affordable housing accommodation in the plan period. This paragraph clearly refers to research which has been undertaken as part of the preparation of the Council's Housing Strategy.

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 226

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

The 1997/98 Housing Strategy, CD/PBC/27, makes reference to the requirement of PPG3 for local authorities to undertake a "housing needs assessment" to determine the need for affordable housing provision. Para.26 of that strategy indicates that at least 30% of new dwellings built in Preston in the next few years should be social housing or some other form of affordable housing. It is further indicated within this strategy that the Council has minimal land holdings and as such cannot guarantee a supply of land for development by housing associations.

7.6.3 However whilst I consider there may be compelling evidence within CD/PBC/27 to illustrate a considerable need for the provision of such affordable housing, no indication is given, either within this document or by the Council, of how the figure of 2500 was arrived at. It is however stated within the document, at para.14, that, as at 1 April 1996, some 2448 households were registered on the Council's waiting list. This directly compares with the Council's estimate of 2500 affordable housing requirement and gives some weight to the NHS objection. Consequently, whilst I do not question the need for a policy concerning affordable housing to be included within the plan, I do not consider that the specifically quoted need for 2500 dwellings for this purpose within the plan period has been adequately justified by the Council.

7.6.4 Para.10 of Circular 13/96 indicates that where local surveys or other data demonstrate a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs, authorities should: "... b) indicate how many affordable homes need to be provided throughout the plan area, set indicative targets for specific suitable sites... and indicate the intention to negotiate with developers for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing on such sites. ....". These provisions are echoed in Circular 06/98 within paras.8-14. However, the production of a statement of overall need is a matter that the Council can readily reconsider at the modification stage of the plan. Whilst I am in agreement with the Council that it is not necessary for such a detailed assessment to be included in the plan, I do consider that some broad reference to the justified figure is required within the policy and reference in relation to how it has been arrived at should be made within the supporting text. In reaching this conclusion I consider the need, as stated in Circular 13/96, and Circular 06/98 which supersedes it, to keep such assessments up to date during the plan period clearly indicates that it would be inappropriate to include a complete detailed assessment as part of the statutory plan.

The Approach to Specific Sites

7.6.5 Objection has been made by GONW that the Council has not set indicative targets for specific sites. Whilst I have concluded above that it is appropriate in the case of Preston to set and indicate an overall target for affordable housing in the plan, I take a different view in the case of indicative targets for specific sites, notwithstanding that it appears contrary to the requirement set out in para.10 of Circular 13/96 (para.9b Circular 06/98). The Council makes no reference in the DP as to whether the sites specified under Policies H2, H3 or H4 are suitable sites in terms of size, location in terms of proximity to local services and facilities and access to public transport, or in terms of the economics of provision. Including such site specific targets would prejudice the ability to take the above factors into account and would limit the extent to which proper negotiation could take place. Consequently, in all the circumstances, I do not consider it

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 227

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

appropriate to set out indicative targets for the sites identified in the plan without further study of the individual characteristics of the sites being considered.

7.6.6 I am, therefore, satisfied that it is sufficient for the Council to indicate within the plan the overall target for the Borough. In reaching this conclusion, I am convinced by the Council's argument that it would be inappropriate to set individual targets in advance of applications being made. As with all the housing allocations, and other sites, the number of affordable units on each site will result from negotiations between the Council and the developer. Such negotiations are likely to be considered by the Council for all sites of a substantial scale, whether allocated within the plan or coming forward as windfall. Consequently I do not consider it feasible, given that no such analysis of suitability has taken place, for the Council to specify within Policy H6 a list of sites which almost certainly would be subject to change over the plan period. Given also that such negotiations would need to take into account many detailed site specific considerations, I do not consider that it is appropriate for me to recommend either for or against the suitability of individual sites to accommodate affordable housing.

7.6.7 Advice given in Para.10(i) of Circular 06/98 indicates that: "..it will be inappropriate to seek any affordable housing on some sites. In practice the policy should only be applied to suitable sites, namely... (a) to developments of 25 or more dwellings, or residential sites of 1 hectare or more irrespective of the number of dwellings; ...(c) in settlements in rural areas with a population of 3000 or fewer .... These should be based on assessments which include local needs and the available supply of land for housing, and should be adopted only through the local plan process. The Secretary of State considers that it may be appropriate for local planning authorities in those areas where the higher threshold (at (a) above) would apply, and who are able to demonstrate exceptional local constraints, to seek to adopt a lower threshold. ... However with the exception of settlements in rural areas .... the Secretary of State does not consider it would be appropriate for local planning authorities to seek to adopt thresholds below the level of 15 dwellings or 0.5 of a hectare.". This advice should be reflected in the policies of the plan.

7.6.8 I have concluded above that the specifically quoted need for 2500 affordable housing units within the plan period has not been adequately justified by the Council. I do not consider therefore, on the information before me, the exceptional local constraints, necessary to adopt a lower threshold than 25 dwellings or 1 hectare, have been adequately demonstrated.

7.6.9 Policy H6 makes no distinction between sites in urban and rural areas and given that Circular 06/98 requires that particular assessment of the need is required in rural areas for the adoption of lower thresholds, the Council may wish to consider an assessment of need based on the criteria set out in footnote 9 of Circular 06/98. In the absence of such an assessment I consider that the thresholds set out in (a) above should be adopted for the Borough as a whole.

The 20% "contribution"

7.6.10 The NHS Executive North West and Bellway Homes Ltd consider the inclusion of the figure of 20% is unrealistic and should be deleted. PPG3 clearly advises against the references to a "quota" and the Council do not include this figure as such a "quota". Even though I have

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 228

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

concluded above that a specific number of affordable housing units has not been adequately justified there is still compelling evidence to demonstrate that a large number of affordable dwellings are required in Preston. The Council indicate, correctly in my opinion, that any such large figure is unlikely to be achieved as, as it states: "when the output of such dwellings by this means is likely to be counted in tens of units rather than the hundreds necessary to make a meaningful impact.". Given this situation, the 20% affordable housing is not a fundamental part of the policy wording and is only included in Para.9/65 of the supporting text as an aim or opening bid in negotiations with developers. The last sentence of that paragraph makes this clear in that it indicates "it is recognised that this level will have to vary with the particular circumstances of each site.".

The Supporting Text

7.6.11 Given my conclusions above I consider that reference to the overall target figure and the provisions of Circular 06/98 should both be given more recognition within Policy H6 and the supporting text. The Policy should be amended as set out in my recommendation to make more specific reference to specific provisions of the Circular. I also consider that the supporting text should be expanded to make more reference to the general provisions of this latest Circular and to include specific reference to the manner in which the assessment of the need for affordable housing has been carried out.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.7.8) Policy H6 being reworded as follows:

"In appropriate circumstances and in order to help achieve the district wide affordable housing target of ....(to be determined by the Council) dwellings, planning permission for housing development on substantial sites will only be granted if:- (i) it incorporates a proportion of affordable housing units, the exact proportion of which will be determined by negotiation between the Borough Council and the developer taking into account both the site and market conditions; and (ii) appropriate arrangements and/or legal agreements are entered into by the Borough Council and the developer to ensure that this affordable housing remains so in perpetuity.

The Borough Council will only seek the provision of such housing on sites in relation to developments of 25 or more dwellings, or for residential sites of 1 hectare or more irrespective of the number of dwellings.

(REC.7.9) the amendment of the supporting text to Policy H6 to include general reference to the provisions of Circular 06/98 and specific reference to the manner in which the assessment of the need for affordable housing has been carried out. and that

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 229

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(REC.7.10) in relation to the size of site threshold for the provision of affordable housing in rural areas, the Council give consideration to the production of an assessment of need based on the criteria set out in footnote 9 of Circular 06/98.

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 230

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.7 POLICY H7 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN RURAL AREAS:

Explanatory Note: Preston Friends of the Earth makes reference to the need for Policy D12(c) to be amended. I deal with this matter at Section 7.10 of my report. The Council should have regard to my considerations and conclusions on Policy H6 concerning the provisions of Circular 06/98.

Objection : O/153/15/H7 PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH O/70/22/H7 GONW

PBC Response no. : PBC/71

ISSUES

7.7.1 Whether Policy H7 should be amended:

(i) to include an upper size limit for single homes to accord with the guidance given in Para.15 of Circular 13/96;

(ii) to preclude development on greenfield sites, community facilities or sites of environmental significance;

(iii) to ensure that new developments should make use of sustainably produced materials and comply with Policy D12 (as suggested for amendment).

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Issue (i)

7.7.2 Para.15 of Circular 13/96, re-iterated in Circular 06/98, indicates that concern has been caused by the granting of planning permission for single homes in rural areas as an exception to the provisions of the structure plan, for people with local connections but no proven agricultural or forestry need. The Circular goes on to state: "... The local planning authority should set an upper size limit for such single homes (in terms of floorspace or number of bedrooms) and should make arrangements to restrict the occupancy to people who meet the criteria of need as defined in the plan. ..". The Council, whilst paying regard to the need to take account of the eligibility criteria, conclude that a dwelling size limit would be superfluous due to the fact that it considers that such permissions given will be sufficiently exceptional and designed to meet such a particular need.

7.7.3 Within the Circular it is made quite clear that both the upper size limit of the single home being considered and the eligibility criteria of the household being catered for should be made

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 231

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

explicit. There is in my view, given the need to strictly control building in the open countryside, a need, as expressed by GONW, to clearly show that, even under affordable housing policies, the policies for the protection of the countryside are being given due weight. The fact that larger than normal accommodation may be required is a matter that I consider can only be justified having regard to the material considerations relating to merits of the particular case. The plan should set out the criteria by which normal accommodation proposals will be considered. Consequently I consider that the Council should add another paragraph to the policy to make clear the upper size limit of any single home for which favourable consideration will be given under this policy.

Issue (ii)

7.7.4 Policy H7 is designed to allow the development of affordable housing to meet a proven need in exceptional circumstances, in particular where general housing would not meet the requirements of Policies R2 and R8. The sensitive sites mentioned by Preston Friends of the Earth are given a high degree of protection through these and other policies of the plan. I do not consider that any proposals being considered under Policy H7 would outweigh the protection afforded by these policies.

Issue (iii)

7.7.5 While the source of construction material is not a relevant consideration in terms of land use and development, the reference within the policy to Policy D12, which deals with the design of housing development is necessary. I deal with the concerns of Preston Friends of the Earth regarding Policy D12(c) at Section 7.10.

RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.7.11) by the addition of the following paragraph to Policy H7: "Under this policy favourable consideration will only be given to applications for single homes which do not exceed (size limit to be determined by the Council)."

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 232

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.8 POLICY H8 - CARAVAN SITES FOR GYPSIES:

Explanatory note: LCC's objection to Policy H8 was originally raised as an issue in the Statement of Non-Conformity issued to Preston Borough Council. The Council, under PIC/01/H8, proposed changes which are further objected to by LCC.

Objections : O/128/23/H8 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL OPC/128/53/H8 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

PBC Response no. : PBC/1 & 72

ISSUE:

7.8.1 Whether Policy H8, as proposed to be changed, is in conformity with LSP Policy 73.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

7.8.2 The Council in response to the objection made to the DP accepted the points made by the LCC and proposed under PIC/01/H8 to change the wording of the policy. LCC consider, however, that part (a)(vi) of the policy, as proposed to be changed, is not consistent with LSP policy. Policy 73(a)(v) of the LSP requires that Gypsy caravan sites will be found having regard to "the proximity to services and community facilities" and in that the proposed policy considers only the potential adverse impact that such sites will have on the these facilities, it is not considered to be consistent with LSP policy.

7.8.3 The Council considers that the distinction between the proximity of facilities and the impact upon them is a minor issue of semantics and not a matter for non-conformity. In that the Council, in assessing any application for planning permission, would have to consider the impact and assess the likelihood of demonstrable harm, the Council's use of the word "impact" is reasonable. However the approach of the Council ignores the fact that the intention of this part of the policy is to ensure that such sites need to be well related to the pattern of service provision including schools, shops and other community facilities. As written, the policy could lead to proposals for Gypsy sites in isolated locations in that the only criteria would be that there is no adverse effect on such facilities. This is clearly inconsistent with the intention of LSP policy.

7.8.4 Furthermore the opening sentence is incorrectly worded in that it does not relate well to parts (a)(iv) and (a)(v). The re-use of derelict or degraded land is unlikely to have adverse impact, and the reference in the LSP policy to access to primary and other main routes is intended to ensure that such sites are not isolated. Having regard to the above I consider that the policy as proposed to be changed is inconsistent with LSP Policy 73. LCC consider that in order to be consistent with LSP policy that the opening sentence should be reworded to read: "(a) Where there is an identified need, proposals for Gypsy caravan sites will be approved, having regard to: ...". The Council however consider the term "having regard to", to be vague and ambiguous and point to the need for the policy to take into account the impact on the level and quality of

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 233

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

provision of local facilities. I consider therefore that the policy, as proposed to be changed, needs to be reworded. I recommend another form of words to rectify the inconsistencies with LSP policy.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.7.12) the re-wording of Policy H8 to read:

"(a) Where there is an identified need, proposals for Gypsy sites, which are well related to the pattern of service provision including roads, schools, shops and other community facilities, will be approved subject to there being no unacceptable impact on the level of provision of such local facilities or to:

(i) residential amenity; (ii) nature conservation interests; (iii) the local environment, the character of the landscape or any site of historic importance; (iv) road safety.

Subject to the above, favourable consideration will be given to proposals for such sites which involve the use of unused or under-used land.

(b) The development of new Gypsy caravan sites will not be permitted in the following locations:

(i) within Green Belts; (ii) on the best and most versatile agricultural land; (iii) within AONB's.".

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 234

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.9 POLICIES H9, H14 & W4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS BUSINESS AND EMPLOYMENT USES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS NON-CONFORMING INDUSTRIAL USES

Explanatory Note: As the objections to Policy H9 are inextricably linked with objections to Policies H14 and W4 made by Preston Cold Store Ltd I deal with these together within this section. I cover first the general objections to each policy before dealing with the objections made to the application of the policies to the Preston Cold Store site.

With regard to Policy H9, the objection made by Mr and Mrs Nixon is accepted by the Council and the land at Station Road Barton is, under PIC/05/H9, proposed for inclusion as existing primarily residential area notation. PIC/01/H9 proposes the deletion of criterion (D) which is covered under the transport policies and this adequately covers the objection of GONW which is also Conditionally Withdrawn. The objection made by Messrs Airey Maudsley and Murphy is dealt with at Section 1.3.

With regard to Policy W4, PIC/01/W4 deals directly with the first part of the objection by GONW.

******************************

7.9.1 - GENERAL

Objections : O/153/16/H9d PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH O/153/17/H9e PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH O/70/23/H9 GONW (CW) O/11/1/H9 MR & MRS J P NIXON (CW) O/87/3/H9 MESSRS AIREY MAUDSLEY AND MURPHY O/130/1/H9 PRESTON COLD STORE LTD O/130/H14a PRESTON COLD STORE LTD O/46/2/H14 MR M R JACKSON O/70/25/W4 GONW O/178/2/W4 WHITBREADS O/130/3/W4 PRESTON COLD STORE LTD

PBC Response nos. : PBC/17, 35, 73 & 149

ISSUES:

7.9.1.1 Whether, concerning Policy H9:

(i) the requirement to include provision of car access and parking should be deleted;

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 235

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(ii) reference should be made within the policy to Policy D12 subject to the exclusion of D12(c).

7.9.1.2 Whether, concerning Policy H14:

(iii) the policy is: overly restrictive in particularly relating to B1 uses; contrary to Government advice, and; prejudicial to existing employment uses (other than B1) within residential areas;

(iv) advice and grants should be available to assist non-conforming uses at Grafton Street to move.

7.9.1.3 Whether, concerning Policy W4:

(v) the policy: is ambiguous; in conflict with Policies H9 and W3 and Government guidance, and; is insufficiently justified.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Policy H9

Issue (i)

7.9.1.4 The plan needs to be realistic in its approach to private car usage and, as such, it is necessary to have policies to control the impact of the car on residential amenity. Whilst many of the policies of the local plan aim to promote and facilitate greater use of public transport and means of travel other than the private car, to require similar measures to be incorporated in proposals for housing, irrespective of their scale, may impose an unreasonable burden on prospective developers.

Issue (ii)

7.9.1.5 Whilst Policy H9 applies to all proposals for development in residential areas the cross referencing requested relates only to Policy D12 which concerns only housing development. The design policies of the local plan are adequate to cater for the expressed concern of the objector.

Policy H14

Issue (iii)

7.9.1.6 It is accepted by the Council that Policy H14 provides a blanket ban on all new development involving non-conforming uses other than those falling within B1 use. It does not, therefore, give policy guidance to development within residential areas. As such it is accepted that this may be unduly inflexible. Consequently it is suggested that criterion (b) of Policy W4 be integrated into Policy H14. Subject to the amendments I have set out below in relation to the

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 236

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

objections to Policy W4, I consider that this course of action provides suitable flexibility and consistency with the other policies of the plan.

Issue (iv)

7.9.1.7 The Council accepts, under current planning legislation, that the business premises, at the corner of Grafton Street and Fishergate Hill referred to by the objector, enjoy existing user rights should any new owners wish to perpetuate the current use. With respect to the view that the plan makes no provision for incentives or economic advice to help these businesses relocate, management, administrative and promotional matters are not land use related matters and cannot be addressed by the local plan process.

7.9.1.8 Although the Council indicate, should the current uses cease, that any proposed changes would be subject to Policy SS1 "Mixed Use Frontages", there is no significant justification as to why these properties should be included within such an allocation. The objector, whilst making no objection to the proposed allocation of these properties, points to the fact that Grafton Street is primarily residential such that the removal of these uses would reduce commercial traffic on a residential street and enable the area to be aesthetically enhanced. Whether, even should these uses cease, Policy SS1 uses would produce such a result is a matter of considerable doubt given the nature and mixture of use allowed under such an allocation.

7.9.1.9 Before changed allocations are made within the plan, the need for the change needs to be justified and there needs to be a realistic possibility of such a change being implemented. There is no evidence adduced by the Council that the existing uses of these premises are no longer appropriate for allocation under their existing use or that the Policy SS1 allocation would be more appropriate. The Council indicates that it has responded positively to the "plan-led" approach, by indicating clearly through the written statement and the Proposals Map what forms of development, if any, are considered appropriate for all land throughout the Borough. However, there is little reference in the plan as to why these areas/sites are not any longer considered to be appropriate to remain in there existing use. In my view the area of mixed use allocation at the end of Grafton Street is so significantly large as to require further justification within the plan.

7.9.1.10 Having regard to the above, I consider the lack of justification for the re-allocation of uses to be a significant omission from the supporting text of the plan for many such changes incorporated on the Proposals Map. It seems to me also that significant areas of non-conforming uses should be identified on the Proposals Map and that the reasoned justification for their definition and for their re-allocation for other uses should be clearly set out in the supporting text. If such action is accepted by the Council I consider that the word "small" could be deleted from small business uses in Para.9/76. Acceptance of the above would enable Policy H3 sites to be so designated as significant non-conforming sites under Policy W4 if so justified in the supporting text.

Policy W4

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 237

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.9.1.11 The Council considers that GONW have misinterpreted Policy W4(b). However, even though Paras 10/42 and 10/43 explain the intention of the policy and that it is designed to be applied flexibly, this part of the policy appears to be inflexible in the use of the word "consolidate". Furthermore, the reasoned justification of the policy indicates that Policy W4 is intended to restrict the intensification, or long term continuation, of uses which do not conform to the land use shown on the Proposals Map. This leads me to the conclusion that it is intended to eliminate non-conforming uses notwithstanding that Para.10/43 states otherwise. As such I consider the Policy to be in conflict with Para.14 PPG4 which indicates that many businesses can be carried on in rural and residential areas without causing unacceptable disturbance.

7.9.1.12 Consolidation of a non-conforming industry may not have any adverse impact on the existing situation and could in some cases lead to significant improvements to local environmental conditions. Other than in significant non-conforming cases, which I have indicated above should be indicated on the Proposals Map, I consider that it would be unreasonable to expect that significant environmental improvements should be made in all circumstances. I consider therefore that part (b) of Policy W4 should be reworded as follows: "(b) the consolidation of a non conforming employment use, not specifically indicated on the Proposals Map, will not adversely affect local environmental conditions. In those cases specifically indicated on the Proposals Map as significant non-conforming uses, any such consolidation will need to incorporate significant improvements to local environmental conditions.". The Council accept the need, subsequent on the revision of the policy wording, to clarify the intention of the policy in relation to environmental improvements.

7.9.1.13 Having regard to the above, I consider that criterion (e) of DP Policy H9 is more restrictive than indicated by the guidance given in PPG1. As proposed to be amended under PIC/01/H9, it requires that all the criteria are met, including a requirement that: "the proposal contains measures likely to result in an overall improvement to the environment and amenity of the surrounding area.". PPG1 para.4 indicates that "Sustainable development seeks...... while protecting and enhancing the environment. ..". In requiring an overall improvement, such a policy is too onerous. Criterion (e) of DP Policy H9 should be amended to read: "(e) in relation to existing premises, any new building, including extensions, will reflect the character of the area and adjacent buildings in terms siting scale and materials. Favourable consideration will be given to proposals which contain measures likely to result in an overall improvement to the environment and amenity of the surrounding area.".

7.9.1.14 The Council also accepts that the supporting text of Policies W3 and W4 should be amended to refer to the application of Policies H9 and H14 to residential areas in order to remove any possible ambiguity between the remit of Policies H9, H14, W3 and W4.

******************************

7.9.2 PRESTON COLD STORE, CROMWELL ROAD, RIBBLETON

Explanatory note: Objection is made by Preston Cold Store Ltd to aspects of Policies H14 and W4 in association with the objection made to Policy H9. I deal with these objections together

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 238

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

and my conclusions above are also relevant to this case. The objector does not object to the principle of Policy H9, nor to its detailed wording. Objection is made to any future development of the site being judged by the criteria within this policy, and those of H14 and W4 as proposed to be changed. An alternative allocation is suggested for the site, and involving the adjoining site, W2(E4): namely B1, B2 and B8 but with restrictions on the scale of B8 uses.

ISSUES:

7.9.2.1 Whether the objection site should be treated as part of the surrounding residential area or as a self-contained employment area which is able to develop further and intensify.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

7.9.2.2 The cold store occupies a site of around 1.49ha and lies immediately adjacent to the modern BT Ribbleton Telephone Exchange site which extends to around 0.6ha having a shared access through the cold store site to Cromwell Road. Immediately to the south of the site is a public footpath in the cutting of a former railway line and the surrounding area is predominantly residential.

7.9.2.3 The objector advocates that a more positive approach be adopted within the plan and that the improvement and consolidation of this site should be encouraged by a specific policy and notation on the Proposals Map. With appropriate safeguards it is considered that the site is eminently suitable for continued use as a warehouse and distribution site. By virtue of its size and convenient siting, it is also considered by the objector that scope exists for the accommodation of certain B2(General Industry) use without causing harm to residential amenity. Representations have been made however by BT, the occupiers of the adjacent site, supporting the Councils allocation of their site and the objection site as "existing primarily residential area".

7.9.2.4 It was made clear at the inquiry that the subject of the objection before me is the content of the policy to be used to judge planning applications for business and industrial uses within the residential areas of the Borough. It is also clear to me that there are difficult environmental implications concerning the intensification or consolidation of development on this site associated with traffic and the residential amenity of adjacent residents. Such difficulties were recognised by a previous Inspector when dealing with an appeal REF No.T/APP/N2345/A/86/049383/P5 concerning an extension to a cold room. Having regard to these difficulties and my own observations at my site visit I consider that the existing site is clearly a significant non-conforming employment site where the intensification and consolidation of its use should not be endorsed through a Policy W2(E4) allocation. As such I consider the site should be recognised on the Proposals Map as a significant non-conforming employment site referenced to Policy W4 and under the general "existing primarily residential area" notation.

******************************

RECOMMENDATIONS:

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 239

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.7.13) by the incorporation of PIC/01/H9, PIC/05/H9, PIC/01/W4 subject to Recommendations 7.14 to 7.20 being accepted;

(REC.7.14) by the amendment of criterion (e) of Policy H9 to read: "(e) in relation to existing premises, any new building, including extensions, will reflect the character of the area and adjacent buildings in terms siting scale and materials. Favourable consideration will be given to proposals which contain measures likely to result in an overall improvement to the environment and amenity of the surrounding area.";

(REC.7.15) by the amendment of Policy W4 to delete the word "and" between criteria (a) and (b) replacing it with the word "or";

(REC.7.16) by the amendment of criterion (b) of Policy W4 to read: "(b) the consolidation of a non conforming employment use, not specifically indicated on the Proposals Map, will not adversely affect local environmental conditions. In those cases specifically indicated on the Proposals Map as significant non-conforming uses, any such consolidation will need to incorporate significant improvements to local environmental conditions.";

(REC.7.17) by the incorporation of criterion (b) (REC.7.16 above) as a new criterion within Policy H14;

(REC.7.18) by the deletion of the word "small" before "business uses" in Para.9/76;

(REC.7.19) such that the supporting text of Policies W3 and W4 be amended to refer to the application of Policies H9 and H14 to residential areas in order to remove any possible ambiguity between the remit of Policies H9, H14, W3 and W4.

(REC.7.20) such that the reasoned justification of Policy W4 be amended to clarify the intention of the policy in relation to environmental improvements.

(REC.7.21) such that significant non-conforming uses are indicated on the Proposals Map and justified as such within the written statement.

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 240

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.10 POLICIES H10 & H11 BACKLAND DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS

Objection : O/153/20/H10 PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH O/153/18/H11c PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

PBC Response nos. : PBC/74 & 75

ISSUE:

7.10.1 Whether reference to policy D12(c) should be deleted from the policy and reference made to a preference for proposals which would encourage the use of public transport, cycling or walking.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

7.10.2 The plan needs to be realistic in its approach to private car usage and as such it is necessary to have policies to control the impact of the car on residential amenity. Whilst many of the policies of the local plan aim to promote and facilitate greater use of public transport and means of travel other than the private car, to require similar measures to be incorporated in proposals for housing, irrespective of their scale, may impose an unreasonable burden on prospective developers.

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.7.22) I recommend that no modification be made to the plan in response to these objections.

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 241

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.11 POLICY H12 - HOUSE EXTENSIONS:

Explanatory Note: SPG is not part of the plan and as objections to it are not part of my considerations. The Council accepts that reference to SPG should be deleted from the policy.

Objections : O/70/24/H12 GONW O/160/7/H12 CLLR S NATHA

PBC Response no. : PBC/76

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.7.23) the deletion of the reference to Supplementary Planning Guidance in Policy H12.

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 242

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.12 POLICY H15 - BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL RESTRAINT AREAS:

Objection : O/167/3/H15 BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC

PBC Response no. : PBC/77

ISSUE:

7.12.1 Whether criterion (b) is contrary to Government advice and should be reworded to read: "the development would contain measures to ensure the preservation of the local environment".

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

7.12.2 Criterion (b) of Policy H15 is more restrictive than indicated by the guidance given in PPG1 in that it requires that: "the development would make a significant contribution to the improvement of the local environment". I consider this requirement to be unclear in that there is no indication, either within the policy or in the reasoned justification, as to the matters what the Council might require as part of any improvements to the local environment. PPG1 para.4 indicates that "Sustainable development seeks...... while protecting and enhancing the environment. ..". As such, in requiring significant improvement, the policy as written is too onerous. Consequently I conclude that criterion (e) of DP Policy H15 should be amended to read: "(b) the development will not adversely affect the character of the locality. Favourable consideration will be given to proposals which contain measures likely to result in an overall improvement to the local environment.".

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.7.23) the deletion of criterion (b) of Policy H15 and its rewording to read: "(b) the development will not adversely affect the character of the locality. Favourable consideration will be given to proposals which contain measures likely to result in an overall improvement to the local environment.".

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 243

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

7.13 POLICY H16 - COMMUNITY AND OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL USES:

Objection : O/153/19/H16b PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

PBC Response no. : PBC/78

ISSUE:

7.13.1 Whether Policy H16 pays sufficient attention to design matters.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

7.13.2 Policy H16 gives sufficient scope for all relevant design concerns to be considered as part of the development control process. Although the objector considers that reference should be made to Policy D12 (excluding criterion (c)), Policy D12 relates to the design of housing development and is not complementary to H16 which deals with community and other non- residential uses. The source of construction material is not a relevant consideration in terms of land use and development.

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.7.24) I recommend that no modification be made to the plan in respect of this objection.

CHAPTER 7 THE HOUSING POLICIES 244

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 8 - BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 245

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

8.1 OMISSIONS FROM BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY POLICIES:

Objections : O/157/1/W0 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (CW) O/7/2/W0 ORANGE PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES LTD O/189/1/W0 HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE O/168/11/W0 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

PBC Response no. : PBC/146

ISSUES:

8.1.1 Whether the plan should include policies:

(i) to encourage home based and tele-working;

(ii) to deal with employment in the countryside;

(iii) to provide guidance and encouragement for all forms of rural development;

(iv) to deal with hazardous substance sites.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Issue (i)

8.1.2 Telecommunications can play an important role, through the use of home and tele- working, in supporting a sustainable development strategy by facilitating the dissemination of information as well as reducing travel needs. However, even so, I do not consider, as is suggested by OPCS Ltd, that it would be appropriate to include a policy to encourage such working. It is not the primary role of the local plan to encourage development but to give clear guidance on what uses are acceptable in a particular location. Home and tele-working are not generally likely to require planning permission and consequently the plan does not need to provide guidance on these matters.

Issues (ii) and (iii)

8.1.3 Both the RDC and MAFF consider that policies should be included which encourage economic growth in the countryside and provide criteria against which any proposal could be assessed. The Council considers that the DP, and the PIC's, contain an adequate policy framework, under Policies R1, R2, R8, R10 and H9, to guide rural employment. It accepts however that the plan could, in the light of PPG7(revised), be more positive in its aims and strategy by giving more emphasis to the importance of the rural economy.

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 246

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

8.1.4 I agree with the Council, even though, for the reasons I have set out above, I do not consider it necessary or desirable to include a specific policy to "encourage" such development. I am of the view however that it would be appropriate to incorporate additional wording into the Aims and Strategy Sections of the plan as well as in the introductory parts of Sections 4 and 10 to give the additional emphasis required concerning the importance of the rural economy. In this respect I consider paragraph 2.3 of PPG7(revised) would provide an adequate basis and wording for the required level of emphasis. Moreover, having regard to the need for the plan to give a more positive emphasis towards the rural economy, I also consider that the heading of Section 4 of the plan should reflect this approach and be amended to read "Development in the Countryside".

Issue (iv)

8.1.5 The Council has accepted, under proposed PIC/01/W6, the need to include Policy W6 within a separate section of the plan entitled "Development and Pollution". This new section is proposed to include two additional new policies concerning: "Development on Contaminated Land or Unstable Land" and "Development on Landfill Sites". It is also accepted by the Council that the statement suggested by HSE could be used as part of the introduction to this new section. This course of action would adequately deal with the objection.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.8.1) the incorporation of additional wording, based upon paragraph 2.3 of PPG7(revised), into the Aims and Strategy sections of the plan (Sections 2 and 3) as well as into the introductory parts of Sections 4 and 10 of the plan to give additional emphasis to the importance of the rural economy;

(REC.8.2) the deletion of the words "Restraint of" from the heading of section 10 of the Deposit Plan;

(REC.8.3) the incorporation of Policy W6 into a new section of the plan headed "Development and Pollution";

(REC.8.4) the incorporation of the statement on Hazardous Substance Sites as proposed by the Health and Safety Executive, set out in the Annex to O/189/WO, into the introduction of the new section "Development and Pollution".

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 247

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

8.2 POLICY W1 - PROVISION FOR NEW BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Explanatory Note: Objection made by the NHS Executive to Policy W1 is dealt with at Section 1.3 concerning development at Whittingham Hospital. Detailed matters concerning development at Broughton, from which the objection by Wimpey Homes derives, are also covered in Section 1.3. The objection by P S Clapham to Policy W2 concerning the allocation of land within the western loop of the slip roads at junction 31A concerns similar issues to those made by Morris Homes Ltd and is dealt with here.

Objections : O/71/14/W1 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/92/8/W1 WIMPEY HOMES HOLDINGS LIMITED O/126/4/W1 B & Q PLC O/162/5/W1 SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL O/120/2/W1 MRS B WIGNALL O/175/1/W1 MORRIS HOMES LTD O/175/2/L1 MORRIS HOMES LTD O/3/2/W2 Mr P S CLAPHAM O/128/24/W1f LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

PBC Response no. : PBC/147 & 147a

***********************

8.2.1 POLICY W1 - GENERAL

ISSUES:

8.2.1.1 Whether:

(i) Policy W1 makes adequate provision for the LSP requirement of 180ha of land for business and industrial uses to be met within the plan period;

(ii) the failure to recognise the possibility of retail development upon the sites allocated under Policy W1 is unduly inflexible;

(iii) Policy W1 should recognise that commercial uses may be appropriate as part of large housing developments.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

8.2.1.2 Since the publication of the DP the Council has undertaken a re-assessment of business and industrial land requirements. This indicates a take-up of land 1991-97 of 30.26ha leaving a

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 248

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

residual amount of 149.74ha to be met. Some 124.18ha of land was, at 1997, committed leaving a minimum additional required provision between 1997-2006 of 25.56ha.

8.2.1.3 Table 7 of CP/10 sets out an updated list of new allocations as at January 1997. Whilst this table indicates a total new allocation of 15.58ha of employment land I have concluded elsewhere in my report that an additional 2.6ha could be provided at Whittingham Hospital and that at the Deepdale Street/Fletcher Road site 1.28ha should be deleted. I have also concluded that there is some uncertainty concerning the implementation of the 4.8ha at the West Loop junction 31A site which is allocated for B1/L1 use and seemingly dependent on the view taken by CNT concerning the East Loop site. Acceptance of these conclusions may reduce the allocated total by some 3.48ha to 12.1ha.

8.2.1.4 Whilst the Council estimate that some 20.06ha of employment land would be likely to contributed from all sites allocated under the Site Specific policies of the plan, these policies do not indicate the percentage of the sites which should be allocated to different uses. Consequently there is a considerable degree of uncertainty concerning the implementation of this figure. Moreover Para.1/28 of the plan states that "Where uses are proposed for a site which differ from its current use, it does not mean that development will necessarily take place within the plan period". Given that para.6 of PPG4 indicates that the aim should be "to ensure that there is sufficient land available which is readily capable of development and well served by infrastructure", I consider that additional specific allocation of land should be made within the plan. In my view the approach taken by the Council concerning the Site Specific Sites can be compared to that taken in dealing with H3 sites where it has been accepted by the Council that, because of the uncertainties involved, such sites should not be counted in the achievement of the housing land requirement.

Issue (ii)

8.2.1.5 Para.3.23 of PPG6 indicates that "... retail development should not normally be allowed on land designated for other uses in the approved development plan.". Permissive policies in the plan would clearly erode the numbers of sites available for business and industry putting at further risk the achievement of the LSP target figure. The shopping policies of the plan should make adequate provision to meet future shopping needs.

Issue (iii)

8.2.1.6 In putting forward allocations for new development in the plan the Council have, in general, made separate allocations for different uses. However the Site Specific Policies allow for the development of a range of uses within individual sites and Policies H9 and H14 recognise that some commercial uses within the definition B1 may be appropriate in residential areas. Given this situation, I consider that the policies and proposals in the plan are sufficient to promote as well as control the development of mixed uses.

***********************

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 249

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

8.2.2 LAND NORTH OF B6241

Explanatory Note: The objection made by Mrs B Wignall is covered at Section 1.3 where I deal with the whole question of the allocation of land for development in this area.

***********************

8.2.3 LAND AT JUNCTION 31A, PRESTON EAST

Explanatory Note: My considerations and conclusions on this matter should be read in conjunction with my comments on the eastern site (See Section 8.3.9).

ISSUE:

8.2.3.1 Whether the allocation of the objection site for business and industry is appropriate having regard to its location within a predominantly residential area.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

8.2.3.2 The objection site is allocated jointly for B1 and L1 uses. Policy W1 restricts the use of the site to Class B1 uses which by definition are uses which are appropriate in a residential area. Whilst the objection site lies within the slip roads of a motorway junction the implemented scheme contains extensive landscaping and buffering to segregate the road from the residential areas which adjoin it. Consequently there is no need to maintain the site as a green wedge alongside the motorway. Furthermore the use of the site as greenspace would be both difficult and inappropriate in that the adjacent roads would be likely to separate the site from its potential users. Moreover there is also adequate provision elsewhere in Longsands.

8.2.3.3 Given the extent of the segregation from the adjoining area, I agree with the Council that the amenities of nearby residents would be unlikely to be significantly affected either in terms of environmental impact, including that of noise or pollution, or by the traffic generated from the use of the site. The site was, in the Consultation Draft, previously allocated for park and ride facilities which was acceptable to the highway authority and the traffic generated from B1 use is likely to be insignificant, when compared to the other traffic using the motorway slip roads.

8.2.3.4 I conclude therefore that there is no advantage in an objectors proposal to retain this land as some form of greenspace nor do I consider that the joint allocation of B1/L1 would have any significant adverse effects on the residential amenities of adjacent residents.

***********************

8.2.4 RED SCAR SITE (H)

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 250

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

ISSUE:

8.2.4.1 Whether the allocation of the objection site for business and industrial purposes is appropriate having regard to the fact that it forms part of the Pope Lane Ponds Biological Heritage Site.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

8.2.4.2 This objection mirrors an objection originally made by the Lancashire Wildlife Trust which has now been withdrawn. Although the whole of the Pope Lane site is considered to meet the Biological Heritage Site criteria, insufficient data was found to justify the protection of the fragment of the site affected by Policy W1. Given also that the remainder of the site is already compromised by existing businesses and industrial commitments the objection is unable to be sustained.

***********************

RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY W1

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.8.5) such that Policy W1 be amended to include the specific identification and allocation of business and industrial sites to the extent of 25.56ha; but that no other modifications be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 251

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

8.3 POLICY W2 - EXISTING BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS:

Explanatory Note: Objections made by Bookers Ltd and E H Booths are mainly concerned with the non allocation of sites for retail purposes and are dealt with in Chapter 9. The objection by B & Q Plc is essentially the same as the objection made to Policy W1 and my considerations and conclusions are the same as set out in Section 8.2.1. The Highways Agency raises points concerning cross-referencing which are accepted by the Council. My consideration of objections to site specific matters concerning this policy follow attention to the general matters concerning the policy. As objections made by Arrowcroft, concerning the omission of Ribbleton Street Depot from the Site Specific Policies, involve related issues to those concerning objection to the allocation of the site within a Primarily Industrial area, I deal with these objections together. Similarly two objections made by Arrowcroft concerning contiguous sites at London Road/New Hall Lane are considered together as the issues involved are comparable. The objection made by P S Clapham is dealt with under the objections made to Policy W1 at Section 8.2.

Objections : O/181/2/W2 E H BOOTH AND CO LTD O/126/5/W2 B & Q PLC O/178/1/W2 WHITBREAD PLC O/132/4/W2 HIGHWAYS AGENCY O/166/4/W2 ARROWCROFT NW LTD O/232/3/W2 ARROWCROFT NW LTD O/232/2/SO ARROWCROFT NW LTD O/232/4/SSO ARROWCROFT NW LTD O/232/1/W2 ARROWCROFT NW LTD O/166/2/W2 ARROWCROFT NW LTD O/166/3/SSO ARROWCROFT NW LTD O/191/1/W2 ROYAL MAIL PROPERTY HOLDINGS O/45/2/W2 BOOKER PLC O/139/4/W2 COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS O/167/6/W2 BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC O/3/2/W2 Mr P S CLAPHAM O/174/1/W2e1 EMERSON GROUP

OPC/181/4/W2 E H BOOTH AND CO LTD OPC/166/7/SSNEW ARROWCROFT NW LTD

PBC Response no. : PBC/148

***********************

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 252

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

8.3.1 POLICY W2 - GENERAL

ISSUE:

8.3.1.1 Whether Policy W2 is unduly restrictive and overly prescriptive.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

8.3.1.2 The restrictive nature of Policy W2 is based, in the main, on a series of detailed sub-area studies of the existing older industrial areas of Preston which highlighted particular environmental and operational problems in various parts of the town. When taken in conjunction with the general guidance set out in PPG13 the approach taken in the local plan, to specify particular categories of business and industrial uses according to the location and characteristics at both new and existing locations, is legitimate. The plan follows the Use Classes Order which recognises the distinctive impact of various types of business and industrial processes and as such provides guidance to assist developers and also indicates to adjoining occupants what is likely to happen on a particular site.

8.3.1.3 It is suggested by an objector that the policy should allow for "other employment generating uses and uses which would serve the existing business and commercial areas e.g. A3 and C1 ..". As long as such proposed uses were ancillary to the main employment uses of the area, and not already present, the Council considers there to be no reason why they could not be treated on their individual merits as and when such proposals arose. Given this situation I consider it neither necessary nor possible to stipulate criteria to cover every eventuality. Consequently I conclude it is unnecessary to amend the policy.

***********************

8.3.2 RIBBLETON DEPOT, RIBBLETON STREET

ISSUE:

8.3.2.1 Whether the objection site should be considered as a Site Specific Policy and the range of allocated uses extended to include A1, A3, B1, B2, B8, C3, C1, D1 & D2 uses.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

8.3.2.2 The objector considers that, as this land may be declared surplus to operational requirements during the plan period, a site specific notation would reflect the sites mixed use surroundings whilst allowing for continued employment related uses on part of the site to reflect its predominant existing use. However Site Specific Policies generally advocate a mixture of

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 253

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

uses which are considered to be acceptable in principle and in this case the Council consider that only B1 uses are appropriate.

8.3.2.3 A1, A3, C1 and D1/D2 uses are inappropriate in that the local plan makes proper and adequate provision for all these uses on sites which are better related to the town centre and where they are more accessible, particularly by public transport. The site is not within easy walking distance of the town centre and difficulties in crossing Ringway/London Road add to its separation from it. Consequently I do not consider that the location of the site could be regarded as a suitable site to satisfy the sequential approach for the selection of new sites for retail development test as advocated by PPG6 Paras 1.8 to 1.17.

8.3.2.4 B2 and B8 uses would be inappropriate because of the adjoining residential properties on Deepdale Road and heavy commercial traffic generation would exacerbate problems at the poor junction with Ribbleton Lane. Residential development itself would be unsuitable due to the existing and adjoining retail warehouse/general industrial uses which would adversely affect residential amenity. The site, if developed for B1 uses, would provide a clear, environmentally acceptable buffer between the existing residential development to the west and the industrial uses to the east. I conclude therefore that the Council's proposals for the restriction of the allocated uses is the most suitable in the specific circumstances of the site and its surroundings.

***********************

8.3.3 ROYAL MAIL PROPERTY, CHRISTIAN ROAD

ISSUE:

8.3.3.1 Whether the allocated uses for the objection site should be expanded to include B8 storage and distribution use.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

8.3.3.2 The Council do not dispute that the objection site provides one of the few local opportunities for direct rail to road transfer and that the site conforms with the criteria set out in PPG13 of a site with good rail links. It is however considered by the Council that there are other overriding reasons why the site is not appropriate for the continued, long term use for storage and distribution. These concern traffic circulation within the town centre and the impact on local residential amenity having regard to the nature of B8 uses.

8.3.3.3 Access and egress to the site relies solely on Christian Road which feeds onto Fishergate Hill which is one of the main arterial routes out of the town centre. Traffic management measures are already in place which restrict Fishergate Hill to one way traffic westwards and access to Christian Road is obtained from Corporation Street in the town centre. Whilst the Council consider that the development of this site for B8 use would have a significant impact on

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 254

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

traffic circulation within the town centre, in my view, unless action is taken to restrict the traffic generation from any B1 use allowed, the Council's proposals for intensive B1 use could have as significant an effect on town centre traffic as would B8 use. In this respect the Council intend that strict control would be imposed in terms of private car parking provision and compensatory investment made in public transport. The location of the site adjacent to the railway station, and the fact that the route of the park and ride bus along Fishergate Hill Lane passes the junction with Christian Road, leads me to conclude that the site is well placed to make full use of the public transport facilities serving the town centre.

8.3.3.4 With regard to the impact on local residential amenity, the Fishergate Hill Area is a conservation area having some unique historic and architectural characteristics which the Council is committed to conserve. I am satisfied that such conservation would be more difficult to achieve effectively if B8 uses were perpetuated on the site rather than the restricted B1 use. However such local impact can only be ameliorated with B1 uses by the effective restriction of private parking and the use of public transport. Without such restrictions there is in my view likely to be little difference between the accommodation of either B1 or B8 uses. Given this conclusion I consider the Council's allocation of B1 use to be reasonable. The impact of the allocation of the site for B8 use could not in my view be similarly ameliorated even through the use of the Council's development control powers, e.g. by the restriction of hours of operation, or by the use of Section 106 agreements.

***********************

8.3.4 78 HOLME SLACK LANE

Explanatory Note: Objection to the inclusion of this site within Policy W2 is dealt with at Section 9.8.3. ***********************

8.3.5 LAND AT MOOR LANE

ISSUES:

8.3.5.1 Whether the Moor Lane telephone exchange premises should be designated as a Site Specific policy area where allocations for mixed uses should include, in addition to B1 use: D1, C1, C3, A1 and A3 uses.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

8.3.5.2 The objection site lies just outside the defined town centre boundary, adjoins secondary retailing along Friargate Brow and is located adjacent to sites, SS11, SS12 and SS19, which the Council consider could be redeveloped for town centre type uses. Adequate provision is made for D1, C1, A3 and A1 uses elsewhere in the town centre at locations which are more central and better placed to satisfy the preference to be given to town centre locations under the sequential

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 255

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

approach set out in PPG6. Furthermore, the objection site lies within an area which contains a full range of land uses. Consequently there is no overriding reason to make additional site specific mixed use provision. Whilst I accept that the objection site is an important gateway site with a high commercial profile I consider that its allocation for B1 use would not be incompatible with its prominence.

***********************

8.3.6 BOOTHS DEPOT - QUEEN STREET

Explanatory Note: These objections are dealt with at Section 9.1.2.

***********************

8.3.7 NEW HALL LANE/LONDON ROAD

ISSUE:

8.3.7.1 Whether the objection sites should be dealt with under an SS Policy and the Newhall Street Frontage allocated as a Local Shopping Centre.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

8.3.7.2 The Council has proposed, under PIC/02/SSNEW, a new Site Specific Policy covering both sites. The effect of this change is to extend the acceptable uses to include C1 use but to exclude the objectors suggestions for D1, D2, A1 and A3 uses.

8.3.7.3 A1, A3, C1 and D1/D2 uses are inappropriate. The local plan makes proper and adequate provision for all these uses on sites which are better related to the town centre where they are more accessible particularly by public transport. The site is not within easy walking distance of the town centre and difficulties in crossing Ringway/London Road add to its separation from it. Consequently I do not consider that the location of the site could be regarded as a suitable site to satisfy the sequential approach for the selection of new sites for retail development as advocated by PPG6 paras 1.8 to 1.17. This advice makes clear that first preference for such uses should be for town centre sites. Moreover, from observation at my site visit, it was clear to me that the shopping uses in the vicinity of the objection site are generally of an edge of centre secondary shopping nature whereby their designation as a local shopping centre would be inappropriate.

8.3.7.4 Similarly, applying the sequential approach which should also be related to D1 and D2 uses, large scale community/leisure uses would also be unacceptable. Although the objector makes comparison with the allocation of St.Mary's church site for such purposes, the church is a listed building where a greater degree of flexibility is required to assure its future.

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 256

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

8.3.7.5 The Council considers that it makes good sense to include the frontage properties to New Hall Lane within the boundary of the proposed change Policy SSNEW. I consider, however, that there is little likelihood of such properties being included within the comprehensive approach required under the policy. The properties involved are in multi-ownership and, notwithstanding their condition and the viability of their existing uses, I consider the development of the vast majority of this important gateway site could be prejudiced by the inclusion of these ownerships. In my view it is only through the initial redevelopment of the major part of the site that any improvement is likely to be made to these frontage properties. Consequently I consider that these properties should be excluded from the policy boundary as proposed to be changed.

***********************

8.3.8 LAND AT JUNCTION 31A (Western Side)

Explanatory note: This objection is dealt with under Policy W1 at Section 8.2.

***********************

8.3.9 LAND AT JUNCTION 31A (Eastern Side)

ISSUE:

8.3.9.1 Whether the fact that the objection site has the benefit of outline planning permission for an hotel and employment use should be recognised in the plan.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

8.3.9.2 The Council accepts the site has the benefit of outline planning permission for an hotel and employment use. However adjustments to the park and ride proposal, between public consultation and DP stages of the plan, resulted in it being moved to this site from the equivalent site on the western side of the motorway. As a result of this move, compensatory provision was made by relocating the leisure/employment use to the western site. No objections were made by CNT to the proposed park and ride site on the eastern site and support is given by CNT to the allocation on the western site.

8.3.9.3 Given the above, I can see no reason to make specific reference in the plan to the outline planning permission but, clearly, should the above not be accepted by CNT then the Council will need to re-consider the allocation of both western and eastern sites. Further consultation on this matter is clearly required.

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 257

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

***********************

8.3.10 FORMER BAe SITE - WEST STRAND

ISSUES:

8.3.10.1 Whether the range of uses permitted under Policy W2 is too restricted and should be widened to include A1, B8, B2 and car showrooms.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

8.3.10.2 I have taken into account that the factory buildings have been demolished and that objection site forms part of a greater site granted outline planning permission for redevelopment. The outline permission comprises partial demolition, the erection of an A1 foodstore (conditioned to a minimum of two units, petrol filling station, fast food, public house, residential, amenity open space and improved car parking for retained industrial units. The housing element of the development has now been built thereby partially implementing the outline approval leaving the retailing element as a commitment.

8.3.10.3 Approval of the outline permission was considered as an opportunity to achieve an urban village very much in line with the format promulgated in Para.12 of PPG1 and providing some replacement employment for that lost on the closure of the BAe works. It was considered, at that time, appropriate to grant a restricted B1 permission as a replacement in part for the former high technology skills of BAe workers. Urban Partnership Fund money was granted to the scheme on the basis that the objection site was to be used for employment purposes. Given that the redevelopment was planned to provide an environment of technological excellence then there is good reason to restrict future development to B1 use. The type and scale of uses now proposed by the objector would significantly dilute this concept.

8.3.10.4 The restrictive nature of Policy W2 is based, in the main, on a series of detailed sub- area studies of the existing older industrial areas of Preston which highlighted particular environmental and operational problems in various parts of the town. When taken in conjunction with the general guidance set out in PPG13 the approach taken in the local plan to specify particular categories of business and industrial uses according to the location and characteristics at both new and existing locations is legitimate. The plan follows the Use Classes Order which recognises the distinctive impact of various types of business and industrial processes and as such provides guidance to assist developers and also indicates to adjoining occupants what is likely to happen on a particular site.

8.3.10.5 Whilst the Council consider that the site would be inappropriate for B2 use, because it would prejudice any future redevelopment of the proposed Urban Housing Opportunity site, I have previously concluded that there is considerable uncertainty attached to this policy. As such I do not consider that on its own this to be sufficient reason to dismiss this as a possibility.

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 258

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

However, the local plan has provided for a wide range of employment uses, including allocations for storage and distribution, on sites which are much better related to the road and rail network than the objection site which is not itself directly served by public transport. Consequently I do not consider that either B2 or B8 uses are appropriate allocations for the objection site.

8.3.10.6 With regard to retail uses, whilst the objectors argue that the allocation of further convenience goods would "obviate the need to establish new retail locations elsewhere" the Preston Shopping Study indicates that there is no need for further convenience shopping in Preston and I have concluded that this is especially relevant to out-of-town centre locations. There is, however, considered to be a need for further comparison goods and sites have been allocated within the plan based on the sequential approach recommended by PPG6. The Council have followed this approach and consider that the objection site fails to meet the requirements of Policy S12 as proposed to be changed and has allocated more suitable sites within the plan.

8.3.10.7 Car showrooms are sui-generis and, as such, each application for this use would normally be taken on its merits and judged against the relevant policies of the plan. Irrespective of this, given the need to protect the site for B1 uses, such a use would be unsuitable for the objection site. Having regard to the above I consider the alternative allocations suggested by the objector would not be appropriate.

***********************

RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY W2

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.8.6) the inclusion of PIC/02/W2 and PIC/03/W2 subject to the amendment of the boundary as shown on PIC/02/SSNEW to exclude the frontage properties to New Hall Lane;

(REC.8.7) the cross referencing of Policy W2 to Policies T17, T18 and TNEW;

(REC.8.8) consequential amendments being made to the supporting text. but that whilst no other modifications be made to the plan in response to the above objections,

(REC.8.9) further clarification be obtained by the Council concerning the objections made by CNT to the land on the eastern side of junction 31A.

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 259

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

8.4 POLICY W4 - NON-CONFORMING EMPLOYMENT USES:

Explanatory Note: My considerations and conclusions concerning these objections are considered in relation to the objections made to Policies H9 and H14 and are set out at Section 7.9.

Objections : O/178/2/W4 WHITBREAD PLC O/70/25/W4 GONW O/130/3/W4a PRESTON COLD STORE LIMITED

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 260

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

8.5 POLICY W5 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS:

Objections : O/7/1/W5 ORANGE PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES LTD O/167/5/W5 BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC

PBC Response no. : PBC/150

ISSUES:

8.5.1 Whether:

(i) criterion A of Policy W5 is contrary to Government advice given in PPG8 and should be deleted;

(ii) criterion C should be amended to read: "Subject to technical and operational considerations and requirements effort has been made to ...... "

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

8.5.2 Whilst it is clear, within PPG8, that the local planning authority should not question the need for the service, criterion A refers only to the need for specific equipment. This is consistent with PPG8 which indicates that "local planning authorities may reasonably expect applicants for large masts to show evidence that they have explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure.".

Issue (ii)

8.5.3 The suggested amendment to criterion C attempts to make visual impact subservient to technical or operational requirements. This contradicts para.31 of PPG8 which indicates: "Operators and manufacturers should constantly bear in mind the environmental implications of communications technology and consider the use of materials colours and design which minimise obtrusiveness".

8.5.4 Having regard to the above I consider that Policy W5 should be retained in the plan as drafted. In reaching his conclusion I have also had regard to the support given to the policy by Vodaphone, another telecommunications operator.

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 261

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.8.11) I recommend that no modification be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 262

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

8.6 PIC POLICIES DPNEW1, DPNEW2 and W6 NEW SECTION - DEVELOPMENT AND POLLUTION

Explanatory Note: These policies were promoted as PIC/01/DPNEW and PIC/02/DPNEW as a response to a late objection made by the Environment Agency to the omission such policies in a letter dated 9/12/96 (CD/PBC/39). The Council also propose that these policies be incorporated into a new section of the plan headed "Development and Pollution" along with Policy W6, as is suggested under PIC/01/W6, to which there are no objections. I deal with the objections to these policies together.

Objections : OPC/70/77/DPnew GONW OPC/70/82/DPnew GONW OPC/101/3/DPnew W JACKSON AND SONS CADLEY LTD OPC/101/2/DPnew W JACKSON AND SONS CADLEY LTD OPC/89/11/DPnew HOUSE BUILDERS FEDERATION

PBC Response nos. : PBC/55a & b

ISSUES

8.6.1 Whether:

Policy DPNEW1 - Development on Contaminated or Unstable Land

(i) the explanatory text should explain the relationship between land-use planning and the controls of the Environment Agency and any other pollution control bodies;

(ii) the requirement within the policy that "...the local planning authority is satisfied....." should be fulfilled by reports prepared for developers by independent experts and the words "...where the local planning authority is satisfied..." should be replaced by "...provided...";

(iii) the wording of the policy is too onerous in circumstances where remedial measures could be implemented as part of the development;

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 263

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Policy DPNEW2 - Development on Landfill Sites

(iv) the explanatory text should refer to the terms of relevant guidance in Waste Management Paper 26A (Landfill Completion) and 27 (Landfill Gas);

(v) the policy is too vague and should be reworded to ensure that the onus is not on the applicant to demonstrate that there is no risk.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Policy DPNEW1

Issue (i)

8.6.2 The Council indicates that it has no objection to outlining, in the supporting text, the relationship between planning and the controls of the Environment Agency and any other pollution control bodies. Although the Council has suggested a form of wording concerning this matter for inclusion within the supporting text, I consider that this does not adequately explain the relationship between land-use planning and the controls of other agencies. No full text of the proposed supporting text is before me but, with regard to contaminated land issues, such supporting text should, at least, be based on the guidance given in Paras.1.3, 4.9-4.12 and Annex 10 of PPG23. With respect to unstable land, government guidance is given in PPG14 and the Council might wish to give further consideration to the distinction between unstable and contaminated land when considering the supporting text to Policy DPNEW1.

Issue (ii)

8.6.3 The HBF is concerned that the Council has neither the staff, nor the expertise, to make judgement on the detailed technical issues involved in development on contaminated or unstable land. In this respect I have had regard to the fact that Para.4.10 of PPG23 indicates that: "... the responsibility for providing information on whether it (the land) is contaminated rests primarily with the developer. ..". However the Council in response indicates that it is not willing as suggested by the HBF to rely on reports prepared for developers by independent professional experts as providing the level of information concerning the nature of the hazard or contamination as required by the policy. Although the Council does not claim to have the

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 264

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

relevant expertise, it indicates that it will consult with those that have. Para.12 of Annex 10 of PPG23 clearly supports the approach adopted by the Council that it will consult relevant experts and pollution control authorities.

8.6.4 With regard to the detailed wording of the policy I am more sympathetic to the objector's proposed re-phrasing. Notwithstanding that the wording of the PIC is based on that suggested by the Environment Agency, the policy, as written, suggests to me that the Council will be the final arbiter in the consideration of such matters. This may not always be the case, especially when development proposals affected by such land are subject of appeal.

Issue (iii)

8.6.5 I am satisfied that the wording of the policy is sufficiently flexible, including the word "appropriate", to ensure that the policy is not too onerous. In my view it necessary for the Council to be in a position to control a situation where it was not appropriate for development to take place unless remedial works had taken place. Conversely the policy does not preclude, if appropriate, some remedial work being undertaken as part of the development.

Policy DPNEW2

Issue (iv)

8.6.6 The Council accepts the need to include reference to the terms of relevant guidance in Waste Management Paper 26A (Landfill Completion) and 27 (Landfill Gas) (O/70) within the explanatory text to Policy DPNEW2;

Issue (v)

8.6.7 Para.4.10 of PPG23 clearly states: ".. the responsibility for providing information on whether it is contaminated rests primarily with the developer.". Additionally Para.8 of Annex 10 of PPG23 indicates that: "...., an investigation of the hazards by the developer and proposals for any necessary remedial measures will normally be required before the application can be determined by the local planning authority.". Given such advice I am satisfied that the wording of the proposed Policy DPNEW2 does not place an unacceptable onus on the developer, nor do I consider that the term "clearly demonstrate" requires further explanation or that the policy is too vague.

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 265

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.8.11) by the incorporation of Policies DPNEW1, DPNEW2 and W6 (all re-numbered as appropriate) into a new section of the plan headed "Development and Pollution"; subject to:

(REC.8.12), within Policy DPNEW1, the words "...where the local planning authority is satisfied..." being replaced by "...provided...";

(REC.8.13) the supporting text of Policy DPNEW1 being amended to include reference to the relationship between land use planning and other pollution agencies based on the guidance given in Paras.1.3, 4.9-4.12 and Annex 10 of PPG23;

(REC.8.14) the supporting text of Policy DPNEW2 being amended to include the following wording: "The Local Authority when judging any application by this policy will be mindful of the relevant guidance contained in Waste Management Papers 26A (Landfill Completion) and 27

CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 266

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 9 - SHOPPING

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 267

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.1 OMISSIONS FROM SHOPPING POLICIES:

Explanatory Note: Following consideration of PIC/01/S11 and PIC/01/S12 the objection made by B & Q Plc was Conditionally Withdrawn. The objections made by Arrowcroft Ltd to the omission of the Site Specific Shopping Policy and to Policy SSNEW concerning the area fronting New Hall Lane are dealt with under the objections made to Policy W2 at Section 8.3. As objections are made to the lack of an unrestricted A1 retail use on the site at Queens Road by E H Booth and Co Ltd I deal with the matters associated with these objections here.

Objections : O/192/1/S0 ASDA STORES LTD O/126/1/S0 B & Q PLC (CW) O/168/12/S0 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE O/181/1/SS0 E H BOOTH AND CO LTD O/181/2/W2 E H BOOTH AND CO LTD O/181/3/G5 E H BOOTH AND CO LTD

OPC/181/4/W2 E H BOOTH AND CO LTD OPC/181/5/SSNEW E H BOOTH AND CO LTD

PBC Response nos. :PBC/9, 9a, 100, 148 & 148a

****************************

9.1.1 GENERAL POLICY OMISSIONS

ISSUES:

9.1.1.1 Whether:

(i) adequate provision is made within the plan for new convenience retail development over and above existing commitments;

(ii) the plan should include a policy setting out the criteria against which proposals for farm shops could be judged.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

9.1.1.2 The Council in considering the future of retail development within the Borough, and in order to assist the preparation of appropriate retail planning policies for inclusion in the local plan, commissioned independent retail consultants to assess the health of Preston's shopping facilities and to provide forecasts of future retail expenditure and retail development potential.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 268

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

The results of this study undertaken by Lee Donaldson Associates - January 1994 are set out in "The Preston Shopping Study" (PSS) CD/PBC/40 and are summarised in CP/11. A letter from Lee Donaldson Associates dated February 1997 confirms that changes in the forecast population growth and retail expenditure have not been so significant as to alter the broad findings of this study.

9.1.1.3 The PSS, prior to its integration into the DP, had been the subject of considerable consultation, including detailed liaison with Preston Chamber of Trade. It had also formed a supporting technical report to the Consultation Draft of the Local Plan and at no time during that process had any food retailer disputed its methodology or its conclusions. Given this situation, and the fact that the objector has not adduced any detailed rebuttal of the PSS, I consider that the PSS, taken together with CD/11 and the technical reports prepared for public consultation, provide the best assessment available to me of the situation concerning shopping in Preston Borough.

9.1.1.4 The PSS encompasses factors of population change; economic growth; retail floorspace; shop counts; expenditure patterns; accessibility; pedestrian flows and consumer attitudes. Given the Council have confirmed that the information remains up-to-date and the report has formed part of the consultation process I consider that it satisfies the provisions of the guidance set out in paragraphs 1.6, and paragraphs 8 & 9 Annex B, of PPG6.

9.1.1.5 It was estimated: that Preston Town Centre could support the development of almost 28,000 sq.m gross of new shopping floorspace by the year 2006; that about half of the forecast growth in retail expenditure on comparison goods from the residents of Preston is likely to manifest itself in pressures for additional retail warehousing development sufficient to support almost 39,950 sq.m of gross floorspace; and that the convenience goods sector is not expected to grow to the same extent. In terms of convenience goods floorspace, given the existing commitments at Cottam, Longsands, Corporation Street/Guild Way and Strand Road any new floorspace in this retail sector was considered likely to entail shifts of expenditures from established food/convenience goods shopping facilities.

9.1.1.6 Notwithstanding that the PSS pre-dates the revised PPG6 the Council has, through its PIC's, used the sequential approach to inform its retail strategy. In this respect the Council has allocated: a large town centre site for retail expansion at SS5; an edge of centre site for non-food retailing at Queen Street, and; the expansion of further retail warehousing areas at Moor Lane, North Road and Ribbleton Lane. The site specific objections associated with these areas are considered elsewhere in this report.

9.1.1.7 The extent of possible convenience goods developments was considered to be more than covered by existing outstanding permissions for various forms of local or district level shopping. It was not, therefore, considered necessary to allocate additional convenience goods sites. Notwithstanding this situation the Council point to Policy S11, as proposed to be amended and not objected to by the objector (Asda), which does not preclude the consideration of new formats of convenience goods retailing for which there may be a market demand.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 269

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.1.1.8 It is recognised within the DP, at Para.11/8, that Preston Town Centre has maintained a high degree of vitality and that there is no evidence to demonstrate the expansion of out-of-centre facilities has adversely affected the total scale of provision within the centre. However, it is indicated within Para.11/3 that substantial changes have taken place in the type of retailing that now takes place. Such change in retailing methods and in the approach to town centres as set out in PPG6 makes it imperative that such vitality and viability is protected or enhanced.

9.1.1.9 Whilst no empirical evidence is put forward by this objector as to the need for additional convenience goods floorspace, further consideration of this matter is made in relation to an objection made to the non-inclusion of unrestricted A1 use on a site at Queens Road (See Section 9.1.2). I have determined there, that the lack of an available allocated town/edge-of centre site suitable to cater for such a use is a considerable impediment to the sustainability, and enhancement, of town centre vitality and viability. This, I consider, is contrary to a major Government objective for town centre development and I have concluded there to be a need for the allocation of an unrestricted retail site either within or closely associated with the town centre.

9.1.1.10 Given the above situation, and although there are objections made concerning the individual allocations made, I consider that the Council's approach to the non-food retail allocations within the plan is consistent with Government guidance in PPG6 and is adequately justified by up-to-date information. Matters concerning the allocation made for convenience goods are dealt with later at (Section 9.1.2).

9.1.1.11 An objector refers to the employment generation aspect of retail developments. It is considered that there are a number of sites identified within the plan for mixed use development which might be considered appropriate for new retail development due to the employment potential offered by retailing. Whilst I accept such a use may be beneficial in the context of job creation, this is a matter which, whilst a material consideration to be taken into account, is not a determining factor in the allocation of specific sites for retail purposes. Also in the case of this objection, as the objector puts forward no specific site for allocation, no detailed conclusions can be made on the site specific appropriateness of the further allocations suggested.

Issue (ii)

9.1.1.12 Para.3.21 of PPG6 refers to the positive benefit of farm shops, but advises that account should be taken of the rural impact on other rural shops, as well as the impact of traffic generated and any car parking issues. These matters are adequately covered in Policy R10 as amended by PIC/01/R10. Policy R4 adequately covers the issue of farm shops when read in conjunction with Policies R1, R2 and R10 and matters concerning car parking and access are covered by PIC/01/T2. As such I accept the Council's view that a specific policy, solely relating to farm shops, is not necessary.

9.1.1.13 The Council accept however that mention should be made of farm shops within the Introduction to the Shopping Chapter. It is further accepted that specific mention be made in the supporting text to Policy R4: to farm shops as providing a legitimate means of contributing to the local economy, and; to Annex C of revised PPG7. I consider that this course of action would provide additional clarity concerning this matter.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 270

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

****************************

9.1.2 LAND AT QUEEN STREET/DALE STREET

Explanatory Note: The majority of the objection site was shown in the DP, under Policy W2, as B1 and B8 (subject to restrictions on scale) uses. The Council, under PIC/01/SSNEW, in response to a request by the objector proposed a site specific policy covering its redevelopment. The Council however did not consider it reasonable for the site to be treated differently to other proposals for the development and consolidation of non-conforming uses covered by Policy W4. PIC/02/G5 removes the Policy G5 designation on the Queen Street frontage but includes reference to a landscaping strip within policy SSNEW. Consequently, objections remain to Policy W2:E5, to the Site Specific Policy and to the requirement for a landscaping strip along the Queen Street frontage. I deal with all these matters here. My considerations and conclusions concerning these objections have also to be read in association with my conclusions concerning Site SS5 at Section 9.3. It is, however, agreed between the parties that the proposed Site Specific policy should be extended to take in the adjoining site fronting Stanley Street proposed for retail warehouse development under PIC/01/W2 & PIC/03/S12. It is also agreed that any redevelopment of the site should be considered in a comprehensive fashion integrating new facilities with the adjacent Queens Retail Park.

ISSUES:

9.1.2.1 Whether

(i) the designation of the site within the DP under Policy W2:E5 is too narrow and negative in form;

(ii) an unrestricted A1 allocation should be made for the objection site as part of a mixed use comprehensive redevelopment strategy covered by Policy SSNEW, having regard to:

the definition of the town centre the town centre shopping and transport policies pedestrian accessibility the need and capacity for such development the need to accommodate other uses

(iii) Policy SSNEW should include reference to the requirement for a landscaping strip along the Queen Street frontage.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 271

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.1.2.2 In putting forward its original proposals for B1 and restricted B8 uses, the Council considered that a policy of endorsing further consolidation and expansion of the storage and distribution use was not appropriate because it would have been contrary to the provisions of para.6.10 of PPG13. This advice indicates that large scale warehousing/distribution should be located away from congested central areas. Consequently the allocation acknowledges that E H Booths may be unlikely to re-locate within the plan period whilst, at the same time, allowing the development potential of the balance of the site to be utilised for complementary business purposes or for additional storage, should a case be made that this would not exacerbate traffic or environmental conditions.

9.1.2.3 It is accepted by the objector that the site is not appropriate in policy terms for a major storage and distribution centre. It is however accepted by the Council that plan policies should allow for minor works to Booths existing storage and distribution centre so long as development would not exacerbate traffic or environmental problems or be of a form or scale which would prejudice the relocation of the facility to an appropriate location away from the town centre and residential areas. Whilst the Council refer to Policy W4 as allowing for such development I do not consider that the provisions of this policy would cover the type of development as indicated by the objector. This it was indicated at the inquiry, might involve such development as an increase in the height of the roof. Furthermore I consider that the granting of temporary or personal planning permission, as was suggested by the Council, would be inappropriate. It is contrary to Government policy to use such conditions where significant capital expenditure is involved. In my view the suggestion by the objector that this matter could easily be remedied, in the explanatory text to the site specific policy, has merit and has considerable advantage over the Council's approach.

Issue (ii)

The Town Centre

9.1.2.4 Section 2 of PPG6 defines a town centre as a centre which provides a broad range of facilities and services and acts as a focus for both the community and for public transport. Para.2.3 indicates that the planning system should provide a positive framework to encourage appropriate investment in town centres and where, amongst other objectives, the Government wishes to encourage investment in retail, employment, leisure and other key town centre uses and mixed-use development. Para.2.2 indicates that: "the vitality and viability of town centres depends on retaining a wide range of attractions and amenities.". Para.2.26 indicates that: "town centres are, and should remain the focus for uses that generate a large number of trips. They typically act as the hub of public transport networks. ...". It is clear therefore that there are many existing uses, e.g the railway and bus stations, which fall within the definition of the town centre uses outside those that occur within the area designated by the Council as the town centre shopping area. Given the above, the Council's use of the term town centre shopping area is in my view a too restrictive definition of the town centre when considered against the guidance given in PPG6.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 272

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.1.2.5 The Council contends that the objection site is in an out-of-centre location, quoting para.3.14 of PPG6 in its support. It is accepted by the Council that the site would become within the PPG6 definition of edge-of-centre should the provision be made of a direct pedestrian link to Church Street. However, para.3.14 of PPG6 refers to the walking distance from an edge-of- centre site to the town centre and to other factors including the attractiveness of the route. It does not, contrary to the Council's view, refer only to the main town centre "shopping" area. Also, in that Preston town centre is a large sub-regional centre, its town centre can also be recognised as being larger than the centres subject of paras.3.12 and 3.13. As such it is likely to be able to attract people to walk further than would be the case with the town centres of smaller towns. This situation is also recognised in para.3.14 of PPG6.

9.1.2.6 The Council indicate that the town centre definition on the Proposals Map is made in the context of the Council's traffic and parking policies. This area, therefore, has a function consistent with that defined for the town centre as the hub of the public transport networks and as a focus for uses that generate a large number of trips. These are functions recognised within PPG6 as being related to a town centre. Consequently I do not consider that the definition of the town centre on the Proposals Map to be inconsistent with the functions of the town centre as set out in PPG6.

9.1.2.7 The town centre definition within PPG6 is clearly wider than the more limited definition of the town centre shopping area used by the Council in its consideration of the objection site and is more aligned to the town centre definition as designated on the Proposals Map. The objection site lies within the town centre designation on the Proposals Map and for the reasons outlined above I do not accept the Council's view that, for the purposes of consideration of retail development that: "the site is, with existing access arrangements, indisputably out-of-centre when judged against para.3.14 of PPG6.". In my view the site can reasonably be defined as being located wholly within the town centre albeit at its edge in terms of retail use.

The Town Centre Shopping and Transport Policies

9.1.2.8 Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that the application of the sequential approach, given the lack of availability of other sites within the town centre, would clearly indicate that the objection site is suitable as a mixed use development site containing, amongst other uses, either retail or leisure use, or both. In this respect I am also in agreement with the objector that Policy S11 is an out-of-centre policy and as such does not apply in this case and that the need for its application would only result if no town centre sites are available. Similarly Policy S12 only applies to out-of-centre durable goods shopping. Consequently there are no policies within the plan that deal specifically with either town centre convenience or durable goods shopping.

9.1.2.9 Given my conclusions with regard to the definition of the town centre, there is a policy vacuum for retail development within the town centre outside the town centre shopping area, which needs to be addressed in the plan. Moreover there is no overall policy within the plan which caters for any distinction being made between comparison and convenience retailing in the town centre shopping area or the town centre as a whole. Notwithstanding my recommendations made in connection with Site SS5 it is also significant that the Council's approach to that site does not indicate any restriction on large scale food retailing within the principal retail core. The

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 273

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Council also accepts that, dependent on the creation of a pedestrian link into the site from Church Street, the objection site provides a major opportunity, for the accommodation of retail and other uses cited in PPG6, for potentially consolidating and developing town centre vitality and viability, and for applying PPG13 guidance.

9.1.2.10 Policies T19 to T23 set out the Council's policies on the provision of private car parking and amendments have been suggested to make reference to the proposed revision of the County Council car parking standards. As these policies are of a restrictive nature the Council considers that, even taking into account shared car parking provision with the adjoining Queens Retail Park which has 410 car parking spaces, it would be extremely doubtful if such facilities would meet the parking requirements of most major foodstores. Such foodstores are considered by the Council to have more peaked trip attraction/generation and a much heavier take-up of parking facilities in relation to their floor area than the uses proposed. These uses include restricted A1, D2 and C1 uses and elements of subsidiary residential and office development.

9.1.2.11 However, no objection is made by the objector to the transport policies of the plan and it is accepted that the most appropriate access strategy to serve the site will be chosen within the context of the land use designation and other relevant planning policies as well as market demand. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the site offers good potential to develop a multi- mode approach to the consideration of future access arrangements to the site. As such I consider that the future access and car parking arrangements for the objection site can only be considered in detail at the development brief or planning application stage, through the preparation of a traffic impact assessment. Given this situation, whatever uses are finally proposed for the site, their scale and form could not be determined without a traffic impact assessment. Such a concern was expressed by LCC in connection with the large scale D2 uses proposed for the site by the Council.

Pedestrian Accessibility

9.1.2.12 Whilst the Council have, wrongly in my view, applied edge-of-centre walking distance guidance set out in PPG6, the accessibility of the site in terms of pedestrian usage is clearly a material consideration in the consideration of any proposals for the allocation of the site for either leisure or retail uses. From observation at my site visits I consider that there is good potential to provide improved pedestrian access into and through the objection site. I also confirmed, at these site visits, the view of the objector that such development would be approximately 4 minutes walk from the bus station, notwithstanding that access to the buses is via three subways, and around 6 minutes from the Fishergate retail frontage or Market Place. There are also public car parks within the town centre at Avenham Street and the bus station which are easily accessible by foot. The bus station provides access to over 80 bus routes providing access to all parts of the town and surrounding areas. Given the above I am satisfied that the objection site is in a highly accessible location and would enable those without cars the opportunity to easily undertake linked trips within the town centre as a whole.

Need and Capacity

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 274

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.1.2.13 Para.1.10 of PPG6 indicates, in connection with key town centre uses, that: ".. If, however, there is no need or capacity for further developments, there will be no need to identify additional sites in the town.". The Council have concluded in the PSS that, whilst there is a need to make some provision for additional non-food retail warehouse development, the plan should not make further allocations for foodstore development. Given this conclusion it is surprising that there is no policy within the plan which makes this clear. The objector argues that the Council's concerns about need and capacity are ill founded.

9.1.2.14 The objector considers that the determination of need emerges from consideration of the expenditure potential of the population of the catchment area and whether this potential will be harnessed through existing and committed convenience floorspace. It is calculated that in 1996, total convenience expenditure available in the catchment area was approximately £192.610m and this is projected to rise to £204.322m by 2006, an increase of £11.712m or 6.1%. This figure is broadly agreed by both parties.

9.1.2.15 However in the view of the objector, by assessing the amount of expenditure required to maintain the catchment areas existing and committed floorspace at "average" levels of turnover and comparing this to available expenditure, an indication is gained of the quantity of "surplus" expenditure which could be used to support new floorspace and existing facilities. Under a worst case scenario, there will be, in the objector's view, significant surplus available expenditure of £29.6m which could be lost from the town centre and the catchment area if there is no further convenience floorspace development allowed in the plan period. As such it is considered that need would not be being met.

9.1.2.16 The Council on the other hand consider that there is a fundamental objection to the objectors' estimate which relates to the fact that the "available convenience spending power" in the catchment area defined relates closely to the existing "convenience turnover" in the area. As such it is contended by the Council that this shows that there is an excellent balance between potential convenience spending and the existing convenience shopping facilities with inflows exceeding outflows by some £9.528m.

9.1.2.17 The objector's calculations are however dependent on a number of assumptions concerning: the definition of the catchment area; the conversion of gross floorspace to net sales floorspace; detailed floorspace data for many local/district centres; turnover per sq.ft.; and, retention levels. Notwithstanding that it is disputed that these calculations are sensitive to assumptions concerning: the Schedule of Superstores; Local Convenience Shop Sales; and Superstore Sales, I consider that there are so many uncertainties attached to the overall assessment that its use in the determination of such a "surplus" is extremely dubious. I am mindful however that both the methods used by the Council and the objector suffer from the lack of accurate and up-to-date convenience floorspace information and from the lack of comprehensive household, shopper and trader surveys.

9.1.2.18 Para.4 Annex B PPG6 indicates that in preparing their plans that local planning authorities should: "take account of the broad forecasts of retail demand and how the retail sector is likely to want to respond to that demand over the plan period, by reference to location.". In my view the PSS is consistent with this approach whilst the calculations put forward by the

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 275

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

objector have such inherent uncertainties within them that I cannot accept their conclusions as being reliable in terms of the specific definition of a surplus in capacity.

9.1.2.19 This having being said, there is some agreement between the parties concerning the small net inflow of convenience goods trade. As Preston Town Centre is a key sub-regional centre there is no doubt in my mind that this net inflow of trade to this centre should be protected if its role, vitality and viability is to be sustained. The Council's concern that additional floorspace would entail expenditure shift from established food/convenience goods shopping facilities has to be considered against the need to protect the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole.

9.1.2.20 Paragraph 4.50 of the PSS indicated that, at the time of its production, sufficient trade had been available for major new convenience goods facility. Such a facility has in the intervening time being allocated to a suburban location. It seems to me therefore that without the strengthening of the town centres convenience base that there is a considerable likelihood that the competition from the suburban centres can only result in a further shift of convenience food expenditure to them at the expense of the town centre. This can only adversely affect town centre vitality and viability. Current Government guidance is to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres and to promote the use of public transport wherever possible. It is not the role of the planning system to restrict competition, preserve existing commercial interests or prevent innovation. Consequently I consider the lack of an available allocated town/edge-of centre site to cater for such a use within the plan is a considerable impediment to the sustainability and enhancement of town centre vitality and viability. I conclude therefore that there is a need for such an allocation within the plan.

9.1.2.21 In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account that the Council have received two planning applications for a mixed development including a retail store of sizes of 6,000 or 8,826 sq.m for a site in the Strand Road area outside the town centre area. This indicates to me that pressure still remains for such convenience retail facilities and without the allocation of a suitable town centre site it will be difficult for the Council to resist such pressure for further out-of-centre stores.

Other Uses

9.1.2.22 The Council considers that retail development should not be the sole redevelopment use on the objection site. It is felt by the Council that site considerations and policy constraints, particularly restrictions on the provision of car parking may create residual opportunities for forms of development other than the Councils three preferred uses. It is proposed therefore to amend the site specific policy, to require the inclusion of leisure and/or hotel development and to accept elements of residential or business development provided that they are not accommodated to the detriment of potential opportunities for non-food retail warehousing, leisure or hotel development.

9.1.2.23 The Council is of the opinion that the size an shape of the site may not lend itself to development exclusively for these purposes and that traffic and parking considerations may

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 276

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

constrain the overall scale of development, particularly for additional retail floorspace. It seems to me, however, that the site is sufficiently large to accommodate a variety of uses, including retailing, if developed in a comprehensive manner. In my view it would be premature to rule out any town centre use for this site without more detailed consideration being given to a type of comprehensive development which at the outset is designed to accord with the accepted transport and parking policies. Such consideration should be progressed by means of the preparation of a development brief, to be prepared in conjunction with the interested parties and supported by retail and traffic impact assessments.

9.1.2.24 Having regard to my conclusion that the Council has not demonstrated that Site SS5 has a realistic prospect of being comprehensively developed for retail purposes within the plan period and that in its present state it is more suited to the accommodation of leisure and Class A3 uses, the availability of the objection site for a comprehensive mixed development within the town centre is significant. I consider also the Council to be too pessimistic in its view that, the inclusion of other specific uses would be detrimental to the provision of non-food retail warehousing, leisure or hotel development. Furthermore I do not consider that such a view has been adequately justified. Given also the ample availability of mixed use frontages within the plan I see no reason to include specific reference to Class A2 or A3 retail uses within any policy related to the objection site.

Summary

9.1.2.25 I have concluded that the definition of the town centre as including only the town centre "shopping" area is inconsistent with the advice given in PPG6 and I am of the view the town centre as denoted on the Proposals Map is more compatible with this advice. As such I consider there to be a policy vacuum for retail development within the town centre outside the town centre shopping area, which needs to be addressed in the plan. In that I consider less restriction should be placed on convenience retail use within the town centre than on out-of-centre sites, such an omission could be addressed by making no distinction between convenience and durable goods within the town centre policies concerning sites allocated for retail use. This would be consistent with the approach taken by the Council towards Site SS5.

9.1.2.26 I have concluded that, as there is a need for the allocation of a site that would include the possibility of food retailing and as there is not a reasonable prospect of Site SS5 being developed for retailing within the plan period, the objection site provides a suitable alternative. It is accepted by the Council that, dependent on the creation of a pedestrian link into the site from Church Street, the objection site is a major opportunity for the accommodation of retail and other uses cited in PPG6, for potentially consolidating and developing town centre vitality and viability and for applying PPG13 guidance. I have determined above that the improvement of such pedestrian access is possible and that the objection site is in a highly accessible location and would enable those without cars the opportunity to undertake linked trips within the town centre. I have also concluded, taking into account that Site SS5 has a greater prospect of being developed for Leisure and A3 uses than Class A1 retail use within the plan period, that sufficient additional allocations can be made within the town centre for the accommodation of such uses.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 277

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.1.2.27 In terms of the acceptable uses for the site, I consider that the Council's view that the inclusion of other specific uses would be detrimental to the provision of non-food retail warehousing, leisure or hotel development is too pessimistic and has not been sufficiently justified. As such I conclude that the objection site should be considered for the allocation of an unrestricted A1 use within a mixed use development including uses based on the revised PIC Policy SSxx put forward by the Council.

Issue (iii)

9.1.2.28 It is contended by the Council that a high quality of urban design on the objection site would require some element of planting/landscaping and that the retention of a green edge to Queen Street is an entirely reasonable requirement. However I am mindful that the area has the benefit of an extant planning permission for a car park and that the achievement of a high quality of urban design specified in para.14 of PPG1 may well be achieved by other means than planting within a comprehensive development of the whole site. As such I consider that reference in the policy to the requirement for a landscaping strip along the Queen Street frontage is too prescriptive and unnecessary.

****************************

RECOMMENDATIONS: SHOPPING POLICY OMISSIONS

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.9.1) such that mention be made of farm shops within the Introduction to the Shopping Chapter;

(REC.9.2) such that mention be made of farm shops as a legitimate means of contributing to the local economy, and reference be made to Annex C of revised PPG7, within the supporting text to Policy R4;

(REC.9.3) by the amendment of the Proposals Map to include a Site Specific policy to cover the area of the Queen Street/Dale Street objection site and the adjoining site fronting Stanley Street proposed for retail warehouse development under PIC/01/W2 & PIC/03/S12;

(REC.9.4) such that PIC/01/SSNEW not be adopted but replaced by a new SS Policy and reasoned justification to read:

"SSxx Queen Street/Dale Street

The Council recognise that this area presents a major opportunity to regenerate part of the town centre which has seen a decline in recent times. In addition potential exists to integrate it

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 278

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

more effectively with the rest of the town centre, including a realistic link with the Queens Retail Park, and the provision of pedestrian and public transport linkages.

The Council recognise that this area contains a long established storage and distribution complex operated by a locally based food store operator whose operations are based in the town centre. Whilst the Council wishes to see that operation relocated to a more appropriate site it will accommodate minor proposals essential for its proper operation pending the relocation subject to their conformity with the other policies of the plan.

Policy SSxx Land at Queen Street/Dale Street

The Council will consider favourably proposals for the comprehensive development of the area which promotes the inclusion of mixed uses, including:- Class A1 Retail Uses; and Leisure/Hotel Uses. Elements of residential and office development may also be acceptable where they are subsidiary to and do not prejudice opportunity for the above forms of development.

The Council will, in consultation with the potential developers, prepare a Development Brief for the area and will expect that any proposals of a comprehensive nature will be supported by both retail and traffic impact assessments.

Any redevelopment proposals made must consider the site comprehensively and must:

A) achieve the integration of new facilities with the adjoining Queens Retail Park;

B) incorporate direct, safe, and secure pedestrian links from the site to Church Street;

C) safeguard the amenity of residents in Walker Place and Grimshaw Street;

D) incorporate high quality urban design and landscaping;

E) accord with the transport and parking policies of the plan.";

(REC.9.5) such that the Council make clear within the plan that the Town Centre as defined on the Proposals Map satisfies the definition of town centre set out in PPG6; and

(REC.9.6) that the Council give consideration to the inclusion of a policy to make clear the approach taken to retail development within the town centre but outside the town centre shopping area.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 279

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.2 REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SHOPPING POLICIES:

Explanatory Note: The Council confirm that the typing errors highlighted by GONW will be amended. My considerations and conclusions on the objections made by Tesco Stores Ltd have to be read together with my considerations and conclusions concerning the PSS at Section 9.1.

Objections : O/163/3/SX TESCO STORES LIMITED O/163/1/SX TESCO STORES LIMITED O/70/26/SX GONW O/70/28/SX GONW

PBC Response no. :PBC/109

ISSUE:

9.2.1 Whether:

(i) Paras.11/5 to 11/20 are too prescriptive and Paras.11/18 and 11/20 are particularly inappropriate;

(ii) Para.11/36 should be amended to refer to the objective of PPG6 to sustain and enhance existing centres.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

9.2.2 The Council indicates that no Pre-Inquiry Changes have been made to the supporting text of the DP and any changes to the Introduction to the Shopping Chapter and the supporting text to many policies will be dependent on the outcome of the Local Plan Inquiry. It is indicated that these Introductory sections of the plan will need to be amended to provide an up-to-date overview of retailing within the Borough. Whilst the Council considers it to be inappropriate to make changes to this text prior to the receipt and consideration of this report, these sections will still form part of the statutory plan. The Council should take care in its "re-consideration" that proper publication be given to any amendments made and be aware also that objections may be made to any new matters included.

9.2.3 Paras.11/5 to 11/20 encompasses the issues of forecast need. In overall terms these paragraphs embraces the advice given in para.4 of Annex B of PPG6 described by the objector and, as such, are a necessary constituent of the plan. However it is also contended by Tesco Stores Ltd that the Council has overlooked the qualitative aspects of the consideration of the need issue. In response to the objections on omissions to the shopping policies (Section 9.1) the Council point to Policy S11, as proposed to be amended, and which does not preclude the consideration of new formats of convenience goods retailing for which there may be a market demand. Whilst I have accepted the need for the proposed change, the Council should give

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 280

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

consideration to the inclusion of such a reference within any proposed revisions of the supporting text.

9.2.4 The Council has accepted that Para.11/5 is "clumsily written" and also accepts that the vagaries of a cyclical economy illustrates that retail planning must look to the long term should be made explicit within the introduction. I have concluded previously that the PSS provides the best assessment available to me of the situation concerning shopping in Preston Borough and no detailed evidence is adduced by this objector against the forecasts made. This being the case I consider that the approach taken by the Council in Para.11/18 is reasonable and in line with the advice given in Para.8 of Annex B of PPG6. Moreover as long as Para.11/20 makes clear that the comment is based on current forecasts I consider that it provides useful explanation of the conclusions of the PSS.

Issue (ii)

9.2.5 Although the Council accept that mention should be made to "sustain and enhance" local centres the Council indicate that the exact wording suggested by the objector will not be included. Although the Council give no reasons for not including the objectors re-wording it seems to me that the objectors' suggested sentence "Allowing appropriate .... modern retail facilities which..." goes far beyond the objective in Para.1.1 of PPG6 when having regard to the Council's own conclusions in the PSS concerning convenience retailing. Moreover the terms sustain and enhance in PPG6 refer to the vitality and viability of town centres whereas Para.11/36 refers specifically to local centres.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.9.7) by the amendment of the Introduction to the Shopping Chapter and its supporting text to make clear that qualitative proposals may be considered under Policy S11;

(REC.9.8) such that Para.11/5 of the supporting text is re-written to make clear that shopping policies must be based on long term forecasts for the plan period; but that no other modifications be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 281

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.3 POLICIES S1, SS4 AND SS5 TOWN CENTRE - RETAIL DEVELOPMENT/PRINCIPAL RETAIL CORE FOX STREET/CORPORATION STREET/SURGEONS COURT AVENHAM STREET

Explanatory Note: Within this section I deal with the objections made to Policies S1, SS4 and SS5. The Council have accepted that the requirement within Policy S1 to contribute to environmental and community planning benefits is too onerous and that, with regard to Policy SS5 that the reference to SPG should be removed from the policy. PIC/01/S1 and PIC/01/SS5 adequately cover these points and, as such, the objections from GONW and Marks and Spencer Plc regarding these points were Conditionally Withdrawn.

Objections : O/194/1/S1 DANIEL THWAITES BREWERY PLC O/70/27/S1 GONW (CW) O/197/1/S1b MARKS AND SPENCER PLC (CW) O/190/3/S1 ARGENT GROUP PLC O/161/7/SS4 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED O/190/4/SS4 ARGENT GROUP PLC O/70/49/SS5 GONW (CW) O/194/3/SS5 DANIEL THWAITES BREWERY PLC O/118/2/SS5 CAFE INNS PLC O/190/1/SS5 ARGENT GROUP PLC O/161/8/SS5 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED

OPC/194/5/S1 DANIEL THWAITES BREWERY PLC OPC/118/4/SS5 CAFE INNS PLC OPC/161/13/SS5 CITY CENTRE RESTAURANTS UK LIMITED OPC/194/7/SS5 DANIEL THWAITES BREWERY PLC

PBC Response no. : PBC/103

ISSUES:

9.3.1 Whether:

(i) Site SS5 is an appropriate and realistic development area for the accommodation of major long-term retail development in Preston Town Centre or whether Site SS4 is more appropriate, having regard to:

the planning background vitality and viability accessibility conservation and environmental matters site specific factors

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 282

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(ii) Policies S1 and SS5 would unduly constrain the development of Site SS5 for other town centre uses, particularly A3 uses and/or the accommodation of such uses within the town centre in general.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

The Planning Background

9.3.2 The PSS 1994 concluded the total additional gross shopping floorspace (including A2 and A3 uses) in Preston Town Centre is about 32,000 sq.m. and this figure is not challenged. At that time it was concluded that: "It may be some years before there is a revival of interest in major town centre shopping development. Yet, given the planning time horizon for the emerging Local Plan, it would be appropriate to make provision and explicitly to promote a major new conventional shopping development in the town centre.". The Council's retailing strategy for the town centre has been based on this recommendation and the advice given PPG6, including, the advice given that local planning authorities should, para.1.11: "local ... after considering the need for new retail development, look to locate this, in the first instance on town centre sites.." and in Annex B para.4 ".. identify a range of suitable sites on which the demand for developments might best be met, with particular attention to their accessibility by a choice of means of transport..".

9.3.3 The redevelopment of part of the St.Georges Centre and of adjoining properties in Friargate will add only approximately 4,650 sq.m within the Principal Retail Core. Opportunities within the existing core for further floorspace additions are considered by the Council to be modest in relation to the substantial development potential identified. Site SS8 is not considered to be large enough and better suited to a mixture of town centre uses incorporating retailing. Beyond the existing retail core the Council consider that appropriate locations for peripheral retail development are constrained by the need to maintain a compact and consumer friendly shopping centre and by environmental constraints. The constraints are considered to include: the physical barrier of The Ringway to the north; The Bus Station to East and the Winkley Square Conservation to the south. It is felt by the Council that these constraints limited serious consideration to Sites SS4 and SS5. Consequently in the Consultation Draft Local Plan the two sites, SS4 and SS5, were identified as options to cater for retail expansion.

9.3.4 In the Preston Central Area Local Plan 1988 Site SS5 was identified outside the Principal Retail Core except only for the frontages of the properties facing onto Church Street up to the Bull and Royal Hotel. The Consultation Draft retained this notation. The Report on Public Consultation concluded that SS5 should be chosen as the more appropriate site for retail development and this site is now identified within the DP.

Vitality and Viability

9.3.5 The Council considers that due to the development of the Fishergate Centre, and its associated large surface shopper car park adjacent to Preston Railway Station, the retail core has

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 283

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

been extended westwards and elongated. It was recognised by the Council at that time, that this extension could pose a threat to the vitality and viability of the older more traditional shopping areas, including Lancaster Road, Miller Arcade, the Markets and Friargate. Despite extensive environmental improvements to these areas (e.g. pedestrianisation), the bulk of subsequent retail investment has taken place on Fishergate with a quantitative and qualitative decline in retail facilities at the eastern end of the core. It is considered by the Council, within the retail core, the redevelopment of part of the St Georges Centre will not in itself guarantee the continuing vitality and vitality of the eastern margins of the centre and that the opportunities for further sizeable additions to gross retail floorspace are only modest.

9.3.6 The PSS defines the high pitch shopping area to lie along both sides of Fishergate, where the main town centre shops are located, extending to the Fishergate Centre adjacent to the railway station at the western end of Fishergate. It is also indicated in this report that strong pedestrian flows and high values extend into the shopping areas to the north of Fishergate, especially into the St. Georges Arcade, in the Market Areas to the north of the civic centre and along the lower reaches of Friargate. There is also pronounced shoppers movement to the east of the Civic Centre in the Guildhall Centre and to a lesser degree along the St Johns Centre. The fringe areas along Church Street and the northern end of Friargate are secondary and tertiary shopping frontage.

9.3.7 The Council recognise that, in terms of maintaining a compact centre, SS4 offers undoubted advantages. However the Council consider there to be a serious risk that further development at the western end of the centre will imperil the retail function and the vitality and viability of the eastern margins of the centre.

9.3.8 My own observations of the town centre generally confirmed the pedestrian flow analysis found by the PSS. In this respect it was clear to me that the position of Site SS5 is such that it is peripheral to the main shopping pedestrian flows within the town centre. It seems to me that, in general, the main shopping flows can be described as occurring around an axis defined by the bus station in the north east to the railway station to the south west. Along this axis, north east to south west, are located St.Johns Shopping Centre, the Market, the Post Office, St.Georges Shopping Centre, Fishergate and Fishergate Shopping Centre. Support for this view is given by the pedestrian flow analysis of the PSS.

9.3.9 Site SS5 is outside this axis, has a lesser relationship with the main retail areas and lies within an area which, as recognised in the PSS, is only a secondary or tertiary shopping area. Moreover, although the Council consider that the site would link the Market with modern shopping to the west, little account is taken of the existing flows identified above. As a result its development could, rather than consolidating the centre, tend to lead to its fragmentation and dilution to the detriment of its vitality and viability. However retail use on Sites SS4 and SS8 would be consistent with the main existing pedestrian shopping flows that exist within the centre and with the main axis of the existing primary shopping use within the town centre. The development of such sites would promote the consolidation of the primary shopping area and, given the many uncertainties that exist in the planning of shopping facilities, is both desirable and more likely to promote the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole than would its dilution and fragmentation by the development of SS5.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 284

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.3.10 I reach this conclusion notwithstanding that I accept that, since the development of the Fishergate Centre, the retail core of the town centre has moved westwards along Fishergate. However, rather than pulling the centre in two directions and attempting to improve the retail function of an area that is recognised as being at the eastern margins of the centre, I consider the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole would be improved by the consolidation of the existing primary retail core along the north-east south-west axis I have defined above. In arriving at this conclusion I have taken into account the support given to the Council's view by the Preston Chamber of Trade. In this instance however I am more persuaded by the arguments put forward by objectors that a poorly located scheme will contribute little to the future success of the town centre and that the majority of retailers seeking town centre locations would require either prime or good secondary locations.

Accessibility

9.3.11 Access by a choice of means of transport is a key criterion set out in both PPG6 and PPG13. Generally, however, the primary shopping centre is well served by public transport due to the locations of the bus station to the north east and the railway station to the south west. Given the analysis of pedestrian flows above, which indicates the existence of pedestrian flows along this axis, I am satisfied that the location of these facilities provide reasonable access to the whole of the primary shopping centre for both bus and rail. Although SS5 is located closer to the bus station it is further from the railway station and whilst the converse is true for Site SS4 the latter site still is within reasonable walking distance of the bus station and is served directly by bus routes from the west and south west of the centres catchment area.

9.3.12 In terms of vehicular access, the Council consider that there is no scope for the additional provision of highway space or car parking in the vicinity of Site SS4 whereas in the case of Site SS5 there is significant existing spare capacity within the adjacent Avenham Car Park. However whilst, with regard to Site SS4, vehicular access is achieved directly from the Ringway and Corporation Street, with respect to Site SS5 such access is achieved via an existing distributor road which passes through adjacent residential areas. The more tortuous approach to this car park and the fact that it is located well below the level of the main shopping street, notwithstanding it lies closer to the St.Georges Centre than does the railway station, may explain its lack of use. Such lack of use indicates to me that it does not provide an acceptable location for shoppers using the primary shopping area.

9.3.13 Having regard to the above, I am satisfied, subject to the preparation of traffic impact studies, that there appears to me to be little between the two sites concerning accessibility by public and private transport. However with regard to pedestrian access, my comments above, in relation to vitality and viability indicate to me that Site SS5 would not be well related to the existing pedestrian flows in the existing primary shopping area.

Conservation and Environmental matters

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 285

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.3.14 The Council points out: that about half of site SS4 lies within the Winkley Square Conservation Area; that the site contains 2 listed buildings (St Wilfreds School and the Methodist Church) which both occupy key parts of the site; and that large areas of the school site are within the site of a former graveyard. Site SS5 is not within a conservation area and only includes one listed building (143 Church Street). Whilst the street pattern, in particular The Ginnels, are of historic interest they, because of the unattractive state of the adjoining buildings, make little contribution to the vitality of the town centre.

9.3.15 In both cases I am satisfied, as long as potential problems associated with the development of the graveyard on SS4 can be overcome, that acceptable schemes for both sites which respect conservation and environmental factors affecting the sites could be produced.

Site Specific Factors

9.3.16 The Council accepts that Site SS5 contains: a mixture of thriving A3 and leisure uses in well maintained premises; some modern/refurbished office and residential accommodation to the south of the site; pockets of industrial premises and more marginal retail and other service uses. However, in that these uses are interspersed with substantial areas of vacant or under-utilised property, it is considered that retail development can be the catalyst to regeneration, creating the combination of daytime and evening activity espoused at para.2.12 of PPG6. Conversely the Council point out that Site SS4 has relatively little vacant, derelict or under-utilised property and that the major landowner has made considerable recent investment in the school and has made it clear that there are no plans for its re-location.

9.3.17 Given the above I am not convinced that either Site SS4 or SS5 can be regarded as having a reasonable prospect of development within the plan period. Para.1.6 of PPG6 indicates: "Local Plans..should,...identify sites for development. Where site assembly is required, the plan should indicate what action the local planning authority will take to accelerate the process, including if necessary, compulsory purchase. ...". Paragraph 1.12 of PPG6 indicates that: "LPA's should be sensitive to the needs of retailers and other town centre business and identify, in consultation with the private sector, sites that are available, viable for the proposed use and likely to become available within a reasonable period of time.". The Council give no indication within the plan as to how the site assembly for a comprehensive scheme for retail development can be achieved in such a multi-ownership area. Similar conditions apply to Site SS4. As such I consider that neither site can reasonably be included within the plan for comprehensive retail development. Furthermore, in relation to Site SS5 I consider, given the number of vacant retail properties which exist, that there is no evidence of any retail interest in the area.

Summary - Issue (i)

9.3.18 I have concluded above that I do not consider either Sites SS5 or SS4 as viable sites for the accommodation of the major comprehensive development recommended in the PSS. However, I consider, had assembly problems been capable of resolution on both sites, Site SS4 is more advantageously located to ensure the protection of the vitality and viability of the town centre than is Site SS5. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the conclusion of the PSS that a comprehensive development was recommended and that the plan may be deemed

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 286

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

deficient if such a proposal is not included. To my mind however the PSS recognised that it may be some years before there is revival in further conventional town centre shopping developments. As such I consider that time still remains for the Council to consult with the private sector as to the definition of suitable, viable and available alternative solutions within the Principal Retail Core.

9.3.19 The area encompassed within the Principal Retail Core represents a substantial area which, although the Council consider there is little opportunity for accommodating new shopping floorspace, could be capable of accommodating changing retailing methods in that its resilience and dynamic response to past major change has been recognised as an outstanding feature of the centre. In the absence of a viable comprehensive development site within the Principal Retail Core, Policy S1 provides a considerable degree of flexibility for the accommodation of the change which is inherent in retailing methods and specifically allows for greater consolidation of retail floorspace. Such an approach would tend to protect and re-enforce the existing vitality and viability of the towns Principal Retailing Core to the benefit of the town centre as a whole.

Issue (ii)

9.3.20 I have determined above that Site SS5 currently includes only an area of secondary and tertiary shopping uses and, because of its multi-ownership character, even though the area contains a substantial number of vacant properties, it cannot reasonably be included in the plan as an area appropriate for comprehensive shopping development. The existing character of the land use within the area is clearly more akin to the mixed use notation on the Proposals Map and within the area there are several leisure facilities, including restaurants, public houses and clubs.

9.3.21 There is evidence before me, from objectors involved in the leisure industry, that there is pressure for the intensification of the leisure uses in this area which is not refuted by the Council. Indeed such current pressures are recognised by the Council but felt to be likely to result in the exacerbation of existing violence and public order problems. Whilst I am sympathetic to the Council's existing problems in this area there is no reason why the extension of broadly based, properly planned and well designed leisure facilities should exacerbate this situation. In my view proper attention to streetscape and building design in consultation with the appropriate law and order authorities may assist in the reduction of law and order problems.

9.3.22 PPG6 indicates that the sequential approach applies to all key town centre uses which attract a lot of people and includes entertainment and leisure uses. Para.1.15 states that these types of uses should be encouraged to locate in cities and town centre uses. Para.2.22 of PPG6 indicates: ".. Where appropriate sites can be found on in or on the edge of town centres these should be considered for major leisure uses, such as...". The Council considers that the provisions of Policy SS5 will not prevent the area continuing to play a major role in respect of the provision of A3 and leisure uses, seeking to complement these existing facilities with new retail development to create a retail based mixed-use area.

9.3.23 In my view however, having regard to my conclusions above, I consider that better opportunity exists within this area for the promotion and concentration of A3 and leisure uses as

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 287

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

the lead uses, with small scale retail development as a secondary use. Although the Council points to the extensive provision made by the local plan for the accommodation of A3 and leisure uses within the town centre I consider that the SS5 Site provides a prime location for leisure based uses where there is a reasonable prospect of such uses being developed and which would significantly add to the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole. Consequently I am satisfied that the principles underlying the objectors proposals for the area have significant advantages over those proposed for the area by the Council. 9.3.24 Although it is suggested by the objector that the area should be identified as a mixed use area, such mixed use areas are covered by the proviso "that such development does not result in an over-concentration of any one use". In my view the Council should give consideration to the definition of a Site Specific policy that allows the concentration of leisure and A3 uses and the preparation of a design brief setting out the principles of the design for the area.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.9.9) by the deletion of Policy SS5 and the exclusion of the area from the Primary Shopping Frontages; and that

(REC.9.10) the Council give consideration to definition of a Site Specific policy for the area covered by Policy SS5 which allows the concentration of Leisure and A3 uses and the preparation of a design brief for the area as SPG. but that no other modifications be made in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 288

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.4 POLICY S3 - TOWN CENTRE - PRIMARY SHOPPING FRONTAGES:

Explanatory Note: I have recommended in Section 9.3 that the definition of the Principal Shopping Core should be deleted from Site SS5. This adequately covers the objections made by Cafe Inns Plc and Daniel Thwaites Brewery concerning Church Street. PIC/01/S3 adequately covers the objection made by Legal and General Assurance Ltd concerning the wording of the policy but as further objections have been made to the PIC I now consider the objections made to the general application of the policy.

Objections : O/171/2/S3 NATWEST GROUP PROPERTY O/179/4/S3 LEGAL & GENERAL ASSURANCE SOC LTD (CW) O/204/1/S3 SUN ALLIANCE GROUP PROPERTY O/194/2/S3 DANIEL THWAITES BREWERY PLC O/118/1/S3 CAFE INNS PLC O/194/4/SS0 DANIEL THWAITES BREWERY PLC

OPC/118/3/S3 CAFE INNS PLC OPC/194/6/S3 DANIEL THWAITES BREWERY PLC

PBC Response no. :PBC/10

ISSUE:

9.4.1 Whether Policy S3, as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/S3, is an unduly restrictive policy and contrary to the provisions of Government advice given in PPG6.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

9.4.2 The Council acknowledges that DP Policy S3 would be likely to perpetuate the existing distribution of non-retail uses rather than achieve the diversity of uses advocated in PPG6 and PPG1. PIC/01/S3 addresses this criticism and introduces a 20% limit on the incidence of non- retail use within defined Primary Retail Frontage. As such I consider, as does the Council, the revised policy will: provide opportunities for development of A2 and A3 uses within the Primary frontages; encourage a better balance of facilities throughout the retail core; and provide greater certainty to prospective applicants for A2 and A3 uses.

9.4.3 Although A2 and A3 uses are important ancillary facilities which support the vitality and viability of town centres, they still are ancillary facilities. Given my conclusions in Section 9.3 concerning the need to consolidate the Principal Retail Core, I consider it essential that the range, quality and ease of access to shopping facilities must be safeguarded. Policies S3, S4 and S1 provide considerable flexibility for the introduction of further A2 and A3 within the town centre. The Council rightly considers that development policies should aim to secure an appropriate balance between A1 and non-retail uses throughout the town centre and including areas of defined Primary Shopping Frontage. The consolidation of an existing concentration of non-retail

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 289

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

uses within these areas may detract from the future vitality and viability of the centre and undermine the Councils retail strategy.

9.4.4 It is therefore reasonable, as suggested by the Council, for Policy S3 to be further amended to require that the proportion of A1 uses is over 80% of the number of units and would not fall below 80% as a consequence of any development proposal. Such policies have been incorporated into the adopted local plans of many other local authorities and the circumstances in the case of Preston justify the inclusion of such a policy. Para.6 Annex B of PPG6 indicates "While Primary frontages may be restricted to a high proportion of retail uses, in particular those uses in Class A1 of the Use Classes Order, there should be scope for more flexibility of use in secondary frontages...". I consider that this is the approach taken by the Council as set out in Policies S3 and S4.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.9.11) the amendment of Policy S3 to read:

"Within the Primary Retail Frontage, as shown on the Proposals Map, non-retail uses will only be permitted at street or pedestrian levels where:

(A) they fall within A2 or A3 of the Use Classes Order, and

(B) the proportion of A1 uses within any 10 units of continuous defined Primary Frontage, including the application site, is more than 80% of the number of units and would not fall below 80% as a result of the proposed development.".

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 290

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.5 POLICY S6 - LOCAL CENTRES - NEW DEVELOPMENT:

Explanatory Note: My considerations and conclusions on the objections made by Tesco Stores Ltd have to be read together with my considerations and conclusions concerning the PSS at Section 9.1. With regard to the objection made by B & Q Plc the Council accepts the deletion of Criterion (C) from Policy S6 and within PIC/01/S6.

Objections : O/126/2/S6 B & Q PLC OPC/163/4/S6 TESCO STORES LIMITED

PBC Response no. :PBC/104

ISSUES:

9.5.1 Whether:

(i) Policy S6 as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/S6 should apply to both, the existing centres defined on the Proposals Map, and to the local centres which have been defined on the Proposals Map, but have not yet been built;

(ii) That criteria (D) (E) and (F) of Policy S6, as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/S6, are not substantiated by Government Guidance as set out in PPG6.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

9.5.2 The Council has concluded that the form of the existing shopping provision, and committed development, fits into the pattern of a traditional town centre (which also takes the role of a sub-regional shopping centre), with existing stand alone supermarkets and local centres. The definition of a local centre was considered the most appropriate to best fit the tier of shopping below the town centre, as it would not leave the door open to applications for superstores undermining the plan's need based strategy. Whilst I accept that no objections have been made to this definition of hierarchy I consider the Council's reason for the selection of the definition "local centre" should have been based on the definitions set out in Annex A of PPG6 alone. The Council's assessment of the hierarchy goes beyond the consideration of these definitions and, as a result, there is some lack of clarity within the policies of the plan which has originated from the approach taken to the definition of local centres.

9.5.3 Para.4 of Annex B PPG6 explicitly refers to the need for different types of centre to be defined in the plan and that the existing and likely relationships between the centres in the area should be considered. In this respect different types of centre should be defined in the plan. The Council have attempted to follow this advice and although only local centres, stand alone

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 291

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

supermarkets and the town centre, are the only centres specifically defined in the plan, it is considered that these adequately reflect the broad forecasts of retail demand as expressed in the PSS. However this restricted categorisation does not appear to reflect the situation that currently exists within Preston town. There are clearly areas of shopping use within the town where food supermarkets exist alongside non-retail services and restaurants, which more closely relate to the PPG6 definition of a District Centre than that of a local centre. Moreover the Council has, in its definition of hierarchy, tended confuse the definitions of type of shop with those concerned with the type of centre contained within a shopping hierarchy. The PSS does not include a specific examination of the existing shopping hierarchy within the town and, as such, it is difficult to assess the adequacy of the hierarchy from the information given either in the PSS, or within the DP. However even a brief examination of the Proposals Map illustrates large areas of existing primarily residential areas where no local centres are defined.

9.5.4 The fact that the definition of existing primarily residential areas includes small shops tends to indicate to me that some of those centres defined on the Proposals Map are more representative of the definition of District Centres than local centres. This was confirmed on my site visits. Moreover I note that Policy S6, as proposed to be changed, refers to District Centres and this seems to represent some confusion in the Council's approach to the definition of centres outside the town centre. In that the Council has not defined either the existence of, or the need for District Centres, it seems to me that there should either be, no reference to such centres within Policy S6 as proposed to be changed or that definitions and locations of such centres should be given within the plan. Furthermore the Council refer to two committed local centres which have the benefit of planning permissions which limit the amount of retail floorspace which because of their proposed size would seem to me to be more appropriately defined as District Centres. Moreover the Council's acceptance of A2 and A3 uses as set out in Policy S7 is clearly more aligned to the definition of a district centre as set out in Annex A of PPG6 than that of a local centre.

9.5.5 Given the above, I consider that the Council should give consideration to including within the plan a more specific explanation of the existing shopping centre hierarchy. In my view without such an explanation the general shopping policies of the plan lack clarity and this is the substance of the objection made concerning this issue. The fact that Policy S6 applies to the existing and proposed new local centres and to proposals adjoining and within local centres illustrates a lack of clarity which also derives from a lack of precision in the definition of the shopping hierarchy. Proposed centres such as Cottam do not seem to adequately fit the definition of a local centre as set out in PPG6. As such I consider that Policy S6 should, as the objector suggests, be applied only to existing centres. New centres such as Cottam should simply be the subject of a separate new allocation on the Proposals map which should be cross referenced to a Site Specific Policy.

Issue (ii)

9.5.6 My considerations and conclusions on this issue should also be read in conjunction with my conclusions on Issue (i). Criterion (D) requires that retail proposals within, as well as outside a local centre should not adversely affect the vitality and viability of existing or district centres or prejudice future investment in those centres. The objector considers the proposed change would

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 292

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

both allow the Council, to seek an impact assessment of the effects of a new proposal in an existing centre, and to reject the proposal if it formed the view that the centres vitality and viability would be adversely affected. I have some sympathy with this view in that the advice concerning "Assessing New Retail Developments" set out in Section 4 of PPG6 applies only to proposals "outside existing" centres (Para.4.1 PPG6). The Council should only seek to ensure that there are no harmful effects on nearby centres. Whether a proposal for a development within an existing centre is large is not material as long as its effects on nearby centres are not harmful. If the effect of the proposal on nearby centres is not harmful then the Council's strategy based on need could not be undermined. Consequently, I consider that Policy S6 should be amended to exclude reference to proposals within an existing centre.

9.5.7 The Council give no explanation of the term "adverse environmental impact" used within Criterion (E) other than it is put forward to ensure that the Council's policies are in accord with the LSP. Without further explanation and clarification the phrase is vague and unclear and should be deleted. In my view also this criterion duplicates Criterion (B) and is unnecessary.

9.5.8 I am in agreement with the objector that there is no requirement either within PPG6 or in PPG13 to assess the accessibility of proposals within existing centres. As such I consider Criterion (F) should only be incorporated within a policy that concerns development outside existing centres. I am also of the opinion that the objectors suggested re-wording of Criterion (F) is more representative of Government guidance.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.9.12) such that the supporting text is amended to include a new section to explain in greater detail the existing shopping hierarchy within the Borough;

(REC.9.13) by the amendment of the heading "Local Centres - New Development" to read "Existing Shopping Centres - New Development";

(REC.9.14) the amendment of Policy S6 to read:

"Proposals for retail development, outside those shopping centres defined on the Proposals Map will be permitted provided that they:

(A) contribute in level, quality or range towards meeting local shopping needs; and

(B) do not adversely affect the character of the centre or the amenity of adjoining property; and

(C) would not adversely affect the vitality and viability of existing centres or prejudice future investment in those centres; and

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 293

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(D) would be accessible by a choice of transport modes and would not significantly increase the demand for private travel.

Proposals for retail development within existing shopping centres defined on the Proposals map will be considered only against criteria (A) and (B) above.".

(REC.9.15) that proposals for new shopping centres should be the subject of a separate new allocation on the Proposals map which should be cross referenced to a Site Specific Policy.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 294

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.6 POLICY S7 - LOCAL CENTRES - NON-RETAIL USES:

Explanatory Note: The Council, have under PIC/01/07, reasonably proposed the deletion of Water Lane as local centre in that there no longer exists any significant element of A1 use. This adequately deals with the objection.

Objection : O/41/1/S7 MR T MADDOCK (CW)

RECOMMENDATION

(REC.9.16) I recommend that the plan be modified by the incorporation of PIC/01/07.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 295

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.7 POLICY S11 - OUT-OF-CENTRE CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPPING:

Explanatory Note: The Council accept the views of the South Ribble Borough Council and the LCC that: the test related to the impact of vitality and viability should incorporate its impact on centres both within and outside of the Borough; the cumulative impact of such developments should be taken into account; and that reference to the sequential approach be made. PIC/01/S11 addresses these objections adequately. During the inquiry, concerning the objection made by E H Booth Ltd involving PIC/01/SSNEW Queen Street, the Council agreed that it was not the purpose of the policy, nor was it consistent with Government advice and the sequential approach for edge of centre sites not to be considered for food/convenience goods development if they satisfied the criteria set down in Policy S11. The Council have suggested a revised wording which is set out in PBC/106A and which my considerations and conclusions below take into account.

Objections : O/128/25/S11 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL O/162/2/S11 SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL (CW)

OPC/128/54/S11 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

PBC Response no. : PBC/106 & 106A

ISSUE:

9.7.1 Whether Criterion (D) should be amended to be consistent with LSP Policy 47.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

9.7.2 Criterion (D) requires that new development would "not increase the number and length of car journeys made". Whilst I accept that this criterion reflects the guidance given in Para.1.16 of PPG6 I do not accept that, in the manner it is framed, it is capable of being reasonably applied. It would be difficult to control and monitor. However whilst I also consider the words suggested by the objector i.e. "the road network is able to accommodate predicted traffic levels, or suitable improvements are identified" derives from a more traditional road capacity based approach, it is nevertheless still necessary to ensure that sufficient capacity exists on the road network to accommodate such development.

9.7.3 I consider that a form of words, similar to that used in my recommendation (REC.9.14) concerning Policy S6 at Section 9.5 and encompassing the wording suggested by the objector, could adequately cover this objection. This would read: " the development.... would be accessible by a choice of transport modes, would not significantly increase the demand for private travel and be such that the road network is able to accommodate predicted traffic levels or any necessary road/traffic improvements". Such wording would in my view adequately replace criteria (C) and (D). In reaching this conclusion I have also taken into account that Policies T17 and T18 provide additional support in dealing with the more detailed matters concerning the

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 296

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

traffic aspects of development proposals. In my view also Criterion (E) is too imprecise and is also unnecessary in that its provisions are adequately covered by Criterion (F).

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.9.17) the amendment of Policy S11 as set out on page 3 of PBC/106A subject to the deletion of Criteria (C) (D) and (E) and the inclusion of a new Criterion to read: "it would be accessible by a choice of transport modes, not significantly increasing the demand for private travel, and be such that the road network is able to accommodate predicted traffic levels or any necessary road/traffic improvements"

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 297

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.8 POLICY S12 - OUT-OF-CENTRE DURABLE GOODS SHOPPING:

Explanatory Note: I deal first with the general objections made to Policy S12 before going on to deal with the site specific objections made. The Council have proposed under PIC/01/S12 an amended criteria based Policy S12. In response to this PIC the general objections made by South Ribble Borough Council and B & Q Plc are Conditionally Withdrawn. The objections made by LCC cover the same issues as raised in connection with Policy S11 and my considerations and conclusions are the same as set out in Section 9.7. PIC/02/S12 changes the allocation of the site owned by Development Securities (L & R Ltd) at Moor Lane to include C3 and B1 use in addition to the existing retailing and in response the objection made concerning this site is Conditionally Withdrawn. PIC/03/S12 changes the allocation of the Argent Group Investments Site at London Road to Retail Warehousing and this objection was Unconditionally Withdrawn. Site Specific objections are made B & Q Plc, Booker Plc, British Telecommunications Plc and Top Rank Ltd.

An objection was also received from Pillar Property Investments in response to the PIC. The Council ruled that it was not duly made and it is therefore not a matter for my consideration. Pillar Property Investments are, as the freeholders of the Deepdale Retail Park and the objection site, progressing the original objection made by Booker Plc.

Objections : O/128/26/S12 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL O/126/3/S12 B & Q PLC O/45/1/S12 BOOKER PLC O/162/3/S12 SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL (CW) O/197/2/S12b MARKS AND SPENCER PLC O/167/4/S12 BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC O/195/1/S12 TOP RANK LTD O/209/1/S12 DEVEL. SECURITIES L AND R LTD (CW)

OPC/128/55/S12 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL OPC/197/3/S12 MARKS AND SPENCER PLC

PBC Response no. :PBC/107, 107A & 107B

****************************

9.8.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

ISSUES:

9.8.1.1 Whether Policy S12 is worded too negatively and the restriction of the policy for out-of- centre retailing to "non-food retail warehousing" is contrary to Government guidance set out in PPG6.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 298

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.8.1.2 The Council considers that it should not give tacit support to the provision of out-of- centre durable retailing, which is not in the form of retail warehousing, by providing a criteria based policy for this type of development. I find such a comment surprising in that, the acceptance of the need to provide a criteria based policy does not indicate tacit support if the criteria are correctly framed. Furthermore although the heading of the policy refers to "Out-of- Centre Durable Goods Shopping", neither the supporting text nor the policy itself covers the range of such shopping that exists. The lack of a policy covering all aspects of this type of shopping is clearly an omission from the plan which leads to a lack of certainty within it.

9.8.1.3 The Council refers to the fact that the Council's shopping strategy is to concentrate comparison shopping in the town centre where a significant demand for new retailing has been forecast and where provision has been made for it under Policy SS5 which extends the Principal Retail Core. Whilst I accept that a policy of concentration on the town centre is consistent with the need to sustain and enhance the town centre as outlined in Para.1.1 of PPG6 I have recommended, at Section 9.3, that Policy SS5 be deleted as far as major retail use is concerned. Even should the Council not accept my recommendation regarding Policy SS5, there would still be considerable uncertainty about its implementation and, as such, I consider the resultant delays that would be likely to occur would make it difficult to justify resisting other proposals outside the town centre. The Council draws the conclusion, from Government advice given in Paras 3.2 and 3.2 of PPG6, that comparison retailing which does not have an operational requirement to be sold from retail warehousing should be restricted to within or on the edge of the town or local centres. However there is no reason why such an approach should not be encompassed under Policy S12. Consequently I am satisfied that a revised Policy wording based on that put forward by the objector has merit and considerable advantage over the lack of any such policy within the plan.

9.8.1.4 With regard to the detailed framing of the policy, the objector considers that criterion (b) of the policy as proposed to be changed does not fully conform to Government guidance in PPG6. It is felt that consideration should be given as to whether approved development proposals for future investment are needed to safeguard the vitality and viability of that centre. A further consideration would be the need to assess the effect of proposals on the strategy for the town centre and taking into account progress made on its implementation. Both of these matters are consistent with the advice set out in Para.4.3 of PPG6. The Council indicate that criterion (b) has been written to ensure that all the considerations outlined in Paras.4.3 and 4.4 of PPG6 are assessed when applying a criteria based policy to the development of retail warehousing outside of areas already allocated for retail warehousing. This assessment would take into account the important long term view. In my view the last part of the policy: "or prejudice approved development proposals, for future investment for these centres", does not clearly represent the advice given in Para.4.3 PPG6. Therefore this part of criterion (b) should be relegated to the supporting text which should also be expanded to explain the advice given in Paras.4.3 and 4,4 of PPG6. Such a course action should be applied to Policy S11.

9.8.1.5 The Council accepts that there is ambiguity in the phrase, within the policy as proposed to be changed, beginning "Such development" and agrees to its amendment to form a more positively worded policy. This would refer to the exceptional circumstances where development

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 299

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

is acceptable. Although the Council have suggested a form of words to cover this matter, given my conclusion above that the policy should refer to all out-of-centre durable goods shopping, I do not consider the inclusion of such a phrase is necessary.

****************************

9.8.2 LAND NORTH OF FLETCHER ROAD - BRITISH TELECOM

ISSUES

9.8.2.1 Whether the British Tecom (BT) site north of Fletcher Road should be allocated for retail warehousing in substitution for the proposed expansion of the existing retail warehouse site at Ribbleton Lane.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

9.8.2.2 BT has not disputed the forecast of need made in the PSS and does not suggest that there is a quantitative shortfall in the land allocated. It is argued however that the Fletcher Road site is better than the allocated site to the south of Ribbleton Road. The Council contends that the loss of such a large employment site would be unacceptable and that its use for retail warehousing would prejudice the Council's retailing strategy based on the sequential approach.

9.8.2.3 Whilst the allocated Ribbleton Road site is defined by the Council as an out-of-centre site, it is well served by public transport and lies on a radial route to the town centre. The objector argues that the Fletcher Road site is significantly more appropriate, it being closer to existing residential areas and a new residential allocation. It is accessible by public transport via the protected Transport Route, and given its situation close to the residential areas, is considered more accessible to shoppers who wish to combine their shopping trips. 9.8.2.4 I have, at section 7.3, recommended that the proposed housing allocation at Fletcher Road be deleted and concluded that the accommodation of retail development at that location would also result in the loss of a potential employment site contrary to the provisions of para.3 PPG13. I have also concluded that there is considerable uncertainty concerning the implementation of the Transport Route. The plan makes provision for a small surplus of land for business and industry uses and the loss of a site of over 3ha from such uses to low density retail uses would unacceptably harm the balance of employment uses within the plan.

9.8.2.5 Having regard to the above, I consider that the objectors site has no locational advantage over that allocated at Ribbleton Road and that its loss from the employment and business allocation within the plan would have the effect of limiting the range and quality of the sites available for such uses.

****************************

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 300

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.8.3 BOOKER CASH AND CARRY - ADJACENT DEEPDALE RETAIL PARK

Explanatory Note: My considerations and conclusions on this site have to be read in conjunction with my conclusions and recommendations with regard to the amendment of Policy S12.

ISSUES

9.8.3.1 Whether the designation of the Bookers Cash and Carry premises should be changed from E1, as defined under Policy W2, and the site identified for retail or leisure use as an extension to Deepdale Retail Park.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

9.8.3.2 The Bookers Cash and Carry site lies to the west of the Deepdale Retail Park the site of which was formerly used for clay, sand and gravel extraction and then as a tip. Planning permission was granted on the objection site in 1971 for the development of the existing cash and carry, this having followed the approval in 1970 of a smaller cash and carry warehouse on the adjoining site to the south-west fronting Holme Slack Road. The surrounding area is predominantly residential.

9.8.3.3 Outline planning permission was granted for the Deepdale Retail Park in 1989 at the time of which the development plan was the Preston Town Map (1963) and the Central and North Lancashire Structure Plan (1983) where the site was shown as a site for mineral working. Planning permission was given for 19,034 sq.m gross of non-food retail warehousing, 3,252 sq.m gross restricted specified leisure uses, 2 fast food restaurants, 4 general industrial units and parking for 1285 cars including 43 for the industrial units. A condition was attached which restricted the retail units to non-food sales and subdivision into units less than 465 sq.m. A first phase of the scheme, incorporating non-food retail units along the north-eastern boundary of the site and a restaurant, was opened in 1990. The restaurant has since closed.

9.8.3.4 The Eastern Suburbs Local Plan, adopted in 1990, allocated the site for mixed commercial development including retail warehousing, leisure facilities and industrial units reflecting the provisions of the 1989 planning permission.

9.8.3.5 In 1993 planning permission was granted and the scheme implemented for the erection of a single storey foodstore development (1214 sq.m gross) by Aldi. In 1994 planning permission was granted for the erection of a Blockbuster Video Shop (577 sq.m) on the Blackpool Road frontage to the east of the main site access on one of the two sites shown for a fast food restaurant in the 1989 permission. This is un-implemented. In 1996 planning permission was granted for the relaxation of a condition restricting occupation of the approved leisure unit to allow use as a bingo club. A further planning permission was given for the reduction in size of the approved leisure unit to 2,323 sq.m gross and a compensating increase in

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 301

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

the non-food retail floorspace to 5,574 sq.m gross, the revised Phase 2 permission. The retail units approved under the revised Phase 2 permission were at the time of the inquiry under construction. A further application seeking the replacement of the approved leisure unit, some 2323 sq.m, by a further non-food retail unit.

9.8.3.6 The Consultation Draft Preston Local Plan 1995 showed the un-implemented second phase of the 1989 permission as a commitment to retail warehouse and leisure development, but did not propose any expansion of the Retail Park. Policies 46 and 47 of the LSP set out the sequential approach and criteria under which retail warehouse development might be permitted outside existing shopping centres. The Proposals Map identifies the objection site as lying within an existing Primarily Business or Industrial Area where development will be restricted, under Policy E1, to Business use, offices and light industry within Class B1 use.

9.8.3.7 Having regard to the above, I consider that there are two matters that are material in this case. These relate firstly, to the designation of the objection site as being within an existing primarily business and industrial area, and secondly, to the fact that existing planning permissions make provision for some 20,000 sq.m of unrestricted Class A1 retail use.

9.8.3.8 The objector argues that the existing designation of the objection site is incorrect and that the two past uses on the site, i.e a builders yard prior to 1970 and as a cash and carry since that date, are more akin to a retail use than a business use. In support of this view the objector points to para.3.8 of PPG6 and indicates that this paragraph advises that in certain circumstances such operations should be treated as if they were retail businesses. However this paragraph refers only to warehouse clubs. Warehouse clubs involve some restriction on the membership allowed to use the facility and, as in the case of Bookers Wholesale Cash and Carry, cannot be described as being used for the sale of goods to visiting members of the public. As such neither warehouse clubs nor the Booker Cash and Carry fall within Class A1 retail use. Whilst the objector describes the existing cash and carry use as sui-generis, in my view it is more akin to a storage and distribution (Class B8) use. Consequently I am satisfied that the existing use of the objection site is properly defined as being under Policy W2. Should it have been determined that the objection site remain in its existing use then the proper designation on the Proposals Map would be under an E6 designation.

9.8.3.9 However the Council have defined the area of the objection site as lying within an area where development will be restricted to business use, offices and light industry under the designation E1 on the Proposal Map. The objector considers however that there is no reasonable expectation of such development proceeding in that Bookers existing lease is until 2011 and there is a restrictive covenant on the site. This covenant restricts any additional building between the Booker building and Aldi until 2022 and the use of the building to non-food retail warehousing. As such the objector considers the site should be allocated for non-food retail uses. Notwithstanding the existence of this covenant, it is pure speculation to suggest that either the Booker site or the adjoining land are likely to remain undeveloped or become vacant in the event of the current planning policies being adopted. Para.3.24 of PPG6 also makes it clear that retail development should not simply be used to bring vacant or under-used sites into use unless it would help support the vitality and viability of existing centres.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 302

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.8.3.10 The Council has made provision within the local plan, in accordance with the sequential approach set out in PPG6, to meet the likely need for retail warehouse development within the plan period identified in the PSS and to provide a variety of sites suitable for a range of retailing formats. Following this approach the Council have included edge of centre sites and out of centre sites accessible by choice of means of transport and on direct routes into the town centre. The Booker site is not on a direct route to the centre in that the Deepdale Retail Park is located on Blackpool Road which constitutes a partial ring road around Preston. Given this situation I do not consider that the Booker site offers any advantage over the sites already allocated within the plan notwithstanding its location at the edge of Deepdale Retail Park.

9.3.8.11 Moreover the site is some 2km from the town centre and in my opinion will not result in combined trips to the town centre and, given the large extent of car parking and poor access to public transport, will not reduce the reliance on the private car. Also, given the large expanse of car parking to the front of the Deepdale centre, pedestrian access is somewhat unattractive for the users of public transport alighting on Blackpool Road.

9.3.8.12 The objector argues that there is no sustainable argument on the loss of vitality and viability to the town centre shopping. However, even though the additional non-retail floorspace at Booker would represent only a small percentage of the existing and proposed floorspace, I consider that there is insufficient evidence before me to determine the validity of this contention. In this respect no retail assessment was available to me nor was any specific reference made to the amount of floorspace that could be accommodated on the site. Moreover given the extent of the existing non-food retail use I consider the further expansion of the centre could have the effect of creating the largest, substantially un-restricted, retail warehouse development in Lancashire. In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account that the further planning application made by the objectors would be difficult to resist if the Booker site was allocated. Such a development could well undermine the Council's retail strategy to enhance the vitality and viability of Preston Town Centre. For these reasons I consider that there is no significant evidence before me which would justify the designation of the objection site for retail purposes.

9.3.8.13 The Council considers that the designation of the objection site and the adjoining land for B1 business uses maintains the opportunity for a broadening of local employment opportunities in accordance with LSP policies 12 and 52(v). These policies stress the advantages of securing mixed patterns of development particularly through the provision of offices and light industry associated with housing. In this respect the Council considers the site would go some way to providing the wider employment opportunities originally envisaged at the time of the original planning permission through the provision of small industrial units. The loss of this industrial site was caused by the development of Aldi and the Council indicates that planning permission was given on the basis that the proposed industrial units could be re-located elsewhere on the development site. It is clear to me, however, from my reading of the Committee report, it had been recognised as being unlikely that such an allocation would be implemented. It was also clear that there was no indicated shortage of such land. In that the original retail park proposal was conceived to include industrial units accessed from the main spine road the retention of this concept, upon the redevelopment of Bookers and adjoining land, is felt by the Council to be appropriate. A Class B1 use is seen to offer this opportunity.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 303

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.3.8.14 Whilst I am satisfied that Class B1 use offers such an opportunity I am also mindful that there is little prospect of such use being developed within the plan period. Although I do not consider that the designation in the plan should be unduly influenced by the current and former uses I consider that there is a need to recognise the existing use within the plan especially when there is no significant objection to it. Although the Council refers to the fact that B8 use could give rise to problems associated with its proximity to residential development, there is no evidence before me which indicate the existing B8 uses in this area have caused such a problem. Moreover although the Council are of the view that B8 development would be likely to attract quasi-retail development such as warehouse clubs I consider that such large scale use could be controlled by the designation of the site under E5 which would offer the opportunity of Class B1 and small scale B8 use. Such a designation would allow, within the plan period, the consideration of small scale additions to the existing B8 uses within the area, as well as allowing for the consideration of B1 use for areas outside the area in the objectors ownership not covered by the existing covenant.

****************************

9.8.4 TRADEX UNIT, CARLISLE STREET - TOP RANK LTD

Explanatory Note: My conclusions on this site have to be considered with my considerations and conclusions on Site SS5, PIC/01/SSNEW, and Policies L1 and S12 at Sections 10.2 and 9.8.

ISSUES:

9.8.4.1 Whether the site currently occupied by Tradex Cash and Carry Ltd on Ringway should be allocated for retail warehousing and leisure use.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

9.8.4.2 I have concluded previously that the area defined on the Proposals Map as town centre more appropriately covers the PPG6 definition of town centre than does the more limited town centre shopping area as defined by the Council. As such I consider that the objection site, in terms of retail use, would be considered as an edge-of-centre site, wholly within the town centre. Leisure uses are defined at para.2.18 PPG6 as being key town centre uses and although retailing should continue to underpin town centres it is only one of a number of uses necessary to ensure the health of town centres. In terms of the sequential approach the objection site would normally be considered appropriate to accommodate a leisure use should it be appropriate and acceptable in traffic and environmental terms.

9.8.4.3 The Council however considers that the relative paucity of true edge-of-centre allocations for retail warehousing has resulted in the allocation of out-of-centre sites when the Council would have ideally preferred to rely on the true edge-of-centre sites. It is also considered by the Council that retail warehousing has peculiar trading characteristics, and

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 304

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

methods of operation which differentiate it from other uses which have greater locational flexibility. Adequate provision is felt to made for leisure use within the town centre.

9.8.4.4 The Council has calculated that some 3.85ha of land is required to be allocated for retail warehousing use. Within the plan some 9.16ha of land have been allocated to ensure that there is flexibility and a choice of sites for such use. Whilst this represents some two and a half times the requirement, the Council assumes that about a third of the land will be developed for retail warehousing. Nevertheless this is still considered to represent a generous level of provision, sufficient to protect the authorities position in refusing any application outside of the allocated areas. In allocating this extent of land the Council have taken into account that less than one hectare of land is allocated solely for retail warehousing.

9.8.4.5 Nevertheless, even having regard to the above, I consider that there is a considerable allocation within the plan for such non-food retail warehousing which would not be substantially reduced if either the objection site or the allocated site to the north were to be considered for joint leisure and non-food retail use. Whilst the Council regard the existing use of the objection site as retail it is not currently used for what could be described as true retail warehousing purposes. I have concluded in relation to the cash and carry adjacent to Deepdale Retail Park that such a use cannot be regarded as Class A1 retail use. It seems to me that, in that it is necessary to be a member in order to use Tradex facilities, the same situation exists here as exists at the Booker Cash and Carry. Also, I noted at my site visit that Tradex is described as a Wholesale Cash and Carry. As such I not consider that the allocation of the site as existing retail warehousing to be appropriate.

9.8.4.6 The Council accepts that the site is not perfect and may not be the ideal site for a retail operator. Although the Council considers that this in no way undermines its policy position, I am not so convinced given the extent of the land allocated for such use outside the town centre. In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account that whilst the objection site occupies a prominent position it does not benefit from direct access from Ringway. Vehicular access is somewhat tortuous, which, for the type of retailing which often involves the use of the private car due to it being associated with the sale of bulk goods, is a considerable disadvantage. The site is also separated from the town centre shopping area by the bus station with its manoeuvring areas and stands which constitutes a significant physical barrier between the two areas. Given its situation I do not consider that the objection site has much merit for the accommodation of retail warehousing uses.

9.8.4.7 This having been said, I have considerable sympathy with the objectors view that the site, being located close to the bus station is suitably located for the accommodation of leisure uses. However the Council considers that it has made adequate provision for leisure uses in the town centre, following the adoption of a sequential approach, and draws my attention to Policies SS1, SS2, S5 and S9 which all accept D2 uses as a possibility. Particular attention is drawn, amongst other sites, to SS8, SS15 and PIC/01/SSNEW. Whilst I accept the Council's view that leisure uses could be accommodated within these sites, there appears to me to few sites that could be used for large scale leisure use. Whilst I have concluded, Section 9.3, that Site SS5 should be used for predominantly leisure use it is an area that is in multi ownership which militates against its use for large scale leisure uses. Moreover whilst I have also concluded that Queen Street

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 305

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

would be suitable to accommodate unrestricted Class A1 use and Leisure/Hotel use, the accommodation of large scale leisure/hotel use is not put forward by the Council as the lead use.

9.8.4.8 In my view the objection site, taken together with the adjacent site to the north, provides a suitable site for the accommodation of a large scale leisure use, even including the hotel use that is considered by the Council to be so required in the town centre. Such uses would be consistent with its location adjacent to the bus station with an attendant large public car park and complementary to the existing hotel use a short distance to the north. However I am not convinced that the objection site on its own is sufficiently large to accommodate large scale town centre leisure use and I accept that any attempt to provide a large scale leisure use on the site would undermine any potential of the site to the north to be developed for retail warehousing. In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account that the objector is promoting the use of the site for a bingo club which, dependent on its scale, may or may not represent a large scale leisure use appropriate to a town centre.

9.8.4.9 Having regard to the above, I conclude there would be significant advantage in both the objection site and the retail warehousing site to the north being re-allocated for large scale leisure use. In reaching this conclusion I am also satisfied that such an allocation would have no greater environmental consequences for the occupiers of the small number of adjacent residential properties than would a retail warehousing use.

****************************

RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY S12

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.9.12) such that Policy S12 be amended to read:

"Out-of-Centre durable goods retail development on sites not allocated for such use will be permitted where the applicant can demonstrate that:

(a) it could not be accommodated on an alternative site within or on the edge of the town centre or within or adjacent to a local centre; and

(b) it would not have any significant adverse effect either singly or cumulatively, on the vitality or viability of the town centre, defined local centres, or centres outside the Borough; and

(c) it would be accessible by a choice of transport modes, not significantly increasing the demand for private travel and be such that the road network is able to accommodate predicted traffic levels or any necessary road/traffic improvements; and

(d) it would not adversely affect the amenity of adjoining property; and

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 306

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(e) it would not result in a shortage of land or sites for the purpose for which the site is allocated in the plan.

Non-food retail warehousing will be permitted in the areas indicated for this purpose on the Proposals Map. Conditions may be imposed to restrict the range and type of goods sold, and to prevent the sub-division of retail units.";

(REC.9.19) such that the supporting text of Policy S12 be amended to include reference to the measures that the Council will have regard to in assessing the impact on vitality and viability;

(REC.9.20) such that criterion (b) of Policy S11 be amended to read as criteria (b) of Policy S12 as recommended above;

(REC.9.21) such that the Booker Cash and Carry site be designated on the Proposals Map under Policy W2/E5;

(REC.9.22) such that the Tradex site and the site to its north allocated on the Proposals Map for retail warehousing be re-allocated for large scale leisure use; but that no other modification be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 307

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 2 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

9.9 POLICY S13 - FACTORY/WAREHOUSE RETAILING:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/S13 adequately addresses the objections made to this policy which are Conditionally Withdrawn.

Objections : O/70/29/S13 GONW (CW) O/162/4/S13b SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL (CW)

RECOMMENDATION

(REC.9.23) I recommend that the plan be modified by the incorporation of PIC/01/S13.

CHAPTER 9 SHOPPING 308

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 10 - LEISURE

CHAPTER 10 LEISURE 310

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

10.1 OMISSIONS FROM LEISURE POLICIES:

Objections : O/42/11/L0 SPORTS COUNCIL NORTH WEST REGION O/42/10/L0 SPORTS COUNCIL NORTH WEST REGION

PBC Response no. :PBC/80

ISSUES:

10.1.1 Whether criteria based policies should be included for the provision of: (i) motor sports; and (ii) golf driving ranges.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

10.1.2 Motor sports are considered to be "sui generis" uses under the Use Classes Order and each case has to be treated on its merits. The generic term "motor sports" covers many individual sports and activities which have huge variations in site requirements. It is therefore impractical to translate the control of such requirements into a criteria based policy. However the existing policies of the local plan, including those as proposed to be changed, are sufficient to guide the development of these uses.

Issue (ii)

10.1.3 Golf driving Ranges fall under Class D2 Use and adequate Policy guidance is provided by Policy L1 of the DP, as proposed to be changed.

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.10.1) I recommend that no modification be made to the plan in response to these objections.

CHAPTER 10 LEISURE 311

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

10.2 POLICY L1 - LARGE SCALE LEISURE FACILITIES:

Explanatory Note: Since the publication of the DP, revised PPG6 guidance has been issued. The Council in response to this guidance has re-assessed Policy L1 and a new policy has been proposed to take into account the sequential approach to be taken to leisure developments. The revised policy is set out at Para.8.8 of PBC/81 and, as this policy has not been the subject of public consultation, no objections have been made to it. Consequently I have not included it within my considerations apart from where it has relevance to objections made to the DP policy. PIC/01/L1 was agreed by the Council after public consultation but was omitted from the Proposals Map. The objection made by Morris Homes Ltd is dealt with at Section 8.2.

Objections : O/114/1/L1 COUNCIL FOR THE PROTECTION OF RURAL ENGLAND O/128/27/L1 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL O/175/2/L1 MORRIS HOMES LTD

PBC Response no. : PBC/81

ISSUES:

10.2.1 Whether Policy L1 should be re-written as a more restrictive policy with a distinction made between rural/urban areas and the Green Belt taking into account the need to have regard to accessibility by public transport.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

10.2.2 The proposed policy revision makes a definite distinction between rural and urban areas and only allows for development in the rural areas outside the Green Belt in exceptional circumstances. It also makes explicit that development within rural areas is subject to a range of criteria including the Rural Restraint Policies. The revised policy also covers the issue of accessibility by public transport.

10.2.3 The revised policy makes clear that it does not apply to the Green Belt for which the provisions of Policy R1 apply. As such it is consistent with the LSP.

10.2.4 Given the above I am satisfied that Policy L1, as proposed to be revised, adequately covers the above objections.

CHAPTER 10 LEISURE 312

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.10.2) the inclusion of the revision to Policy L1 as set out at Para.8.8 of PBC/81;

(REC.10.3) the inclusion of PIC/01/L1.

CHAPTER 10 LEISURE 313

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

10.3 POLICY L2 - NEW GOLF COURSES:

Objections : O/42/14/L2 SPORTS COUNCIL NORTH WEST REGION O/128/28/L2 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL O/154/9/L2f RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION

PBC Response nos. : PBC/18 & 82

ISSUES:

10.3.1 Whether Policy L2 is unduly restrictive and negative, such that it should be re-written as a criteria based policy and to include reference to accessibility by public transport.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

10.3.2 Policy L2 sets out criteria which should be satisfied by proposals for golf course development. In my view these, and other related policies of the plan, are sufficient to guide development subject to reference being made to policies T17 and T18 as other related policies in the supporting text to the policy.

10.3.3 Objection is made that the reference in the policy to footpaths and bridleways lacks precision as far as footpaths are concerned. Policies T6 and L6 are directly concerned with footpaths and it is against these policies that any proposals affecting footpaths will be assessed.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.10.4) by reference being made within the supporting text to Policy L2 to Policies T17 and T18 as other related policies; but that no other modifications be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 10 LEISURE 314

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

10.4 POLICY L3 - SMALL-SCALE LEISURE FACILITIES:

Objections : O/114/2/L3 COUNCIL FOR THE PROTECTION OF RURAL ENGLAND O/128/29/L3 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

PBC Response no. : PBC/83

ISSUES:

10.4.1 Whether, concerning Policy L3:

(i) it is too permissive;

(ii) its relationship with Policies R1 and R2 should be made more explicit;

(iii) an additional criterion is required to make clear the need to have regard to: the accessibility to such facilities by public transport; to road safety; and to the efficiency of the road network.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

10.4.2 The CPRE considers the policy as currently worded is too permissive in that "small- scale" is not defined. It is conceded by the Council that the term small-scale could be interpreted at will. It is, however, considered by the Council that the approach taken by the LSP Policy 50 is no less ambiguous in the use of the term "an appropriate kind and scale". Whilst this may well be the case, the shortcomings of another plan are not good reason for a lack of clarity within this plan.

10.4.3 The Council indicates that the issue of different policy approaches being taken between large-scale and small-scale leisure development will be clarified in the supporting text. The Council has not put forward any such text for consideration and without a clear explanation of the differences involved I consider that the policy lacks clarity and is too permissive. Moreover there is considerable ambiguity within the policy and its supporting text, concerning the approach taken to caravan and chalet developments as small-scale leisure facilities. Consequently because of this ambiguity I am sympathetic to the suggestion, made by an objector, that it would be preferable for the Council to include a separate policy on caravan and chalet development. This would also be consistent with the approach taken in the LSP.

Issue (ii)

CHAPTER 10 LEISURE 315

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

10.4.4 The policy is clearly cross referenced to the Countryside Policies and the policy itself is clearly expressed in terms of the criteria applicable to the existing primarily residential areas, the town centre and rural areas. Given the incorporation of a better definition of small-scale facilities, and the inclusion within the plan of an additional policy on caravan and chalet development, I consider that the relationship of the policy to rural areas is satisfactory.

Issue (iii)

10.4.5 The Council point to other policies of the plan which cover this concern, namely Policies T17 and T18 as proposed to be changed. These policies deal with general traffic considerations and development and adequately cover the objection made. However, in common with the approach taken in the DP, Policy L3 should be cross-referenced to these policies.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified:

(REC.10.5) by the clarification of the supporting text to make clear the different policy approaches being taken between large-scale and small-scale leisure development;

(REC.10.6) by the inclusion within the plan of a new policy on caravan and chalet development;

(Rec.10.7) such that Policy L3 be cross referenced to Policies T17 and T18, as proposed to be changed.

CHAPTER 10 LEISURE 316

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

10.5 POLICY L5 - WATER BASED RECREATION:

Explanatory Note: A number of objections are made concerning the Ribble Link. Since publication of the DP the Ribble Link has received planning permission and is therefore a commitment. PIC/01/L5 removes the final paragraph of the policy and the Proposals Map is to be amended to show its line. This adequately covers the matters concerning the Ribble Link.

Objections : O/42/15/L5 SPORTS COUNCIL NORTH WEST REGION O/154/10/L5 RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION O/158/10/L5 ENGLISH NATURE (CW) O/155/4/L5 RSPB O/156/9/L5 LANCASHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST (CW) O/114/3/L5 CPRE (CW)

OPC/712/1/L5 RIBBLE LINK TRUST LTD

PBC Response no. :PBC/18 & 84

ISSUES:

10.5.1 Whether:

(i) insufficient account has been taken of the demands for water based recreation such that a new policy is required;

(ii) Para.12/30 of the supporting text should more positively express the need to include the Lancashire Coastal Way in the Definitive Footpath Map.

(iii) the phrase "any links and extensions" used in PIC/01/L5 is too vague.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

10.5.2 It is suggested by the objector that Policy L5 should be re-titled "Recreation adjacent to Linear Water Features" and a new policy be included to address the needs of water recreation activities. The Council points out that the existing policy provides for water recreation activities and that, in any case, the Borough does not contain many water features which are not linear in form.

10.5.3 However, the policy, as proposed to be changed under PIC/01/L5, deals only with "recreational uses adjacent to" and does not specifically refer to water recreation. Whilst the Council correctly indicates that activities such as sailing, canoeing and water-skiing would not in

CHAPTER 10 LEISURE 317

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

themselves constitute a material change of use, any recreational buildings associated with these activities would require permission. In my view the policy should reflect this situation and I consider that PIC/01/L5 should be reworded as follows: "Proposals for recreational uses, including development associated with water recreation, adjacent to the Lancaster Canal, the River Ribble Corridor, other water features and any links and extensions, will be permitted providing that:....".

Issue (ii)

10.5.4 Such a matter is not a land use matter and cannot be addressed within the local plan process.

Issue (iii)

10.5.5 Whilst it is recognised by the Council that the phrase used is vague, without any specific proposals, it is necessary to include a relatively non-prescriptive description in the plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.10.8) the inclusion of PIC/01/L5 subject its re-wording as follows: Proposals for recreational uses, including development associated with water recreation, adjacent to the Lancaster Canal, the River Ribble Corridor, other water features and any links and extensions, will be permitted providing that:....".

(REC.10.9) that the Proposals Map be amended to show the line of the Ribble Link; but that no other modifications be made to the plan in response to the above objections.

CHAPTER 10 LEISURE 318

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

10.6 POLICY L6 - PUBLIC FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS:

Objections : O/129/13/L6 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION O/183/3/L6 LARA MRDO O/183/4/LX LARA MRDO O/154/6/L6 RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION

PBC Response no. : PBC/85

ISSUES:

10.6.1 Whether

(i) the phrase "Public Rights of Way" should be substituted for "Public Footpaths and Bridleways" in both the policy and within Para.12/35 of the supporting text, and the word "unacceptably" inserted into the second paragraph of the policy after the word "development";

(ii) more specific proposals concerning footpaths should be included in the plan.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

10.6.2 The Council accepts the amendments as suggested by objectors and PIC/01/L6 covers the objections to the policy adequately.

Issue (ii)

10.6.3 These matters have previously been considered in relation to objections to Policy T6 (see Section 5.8). The Council's reasoning behind the change to the policy title is that Public Rights of Way also includes Roads Used as Public Paths, Byeways and unsurfaced, unclassified roads. It is, therefore an all encompassing policy title.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.10.10) the incorporation of PIC/01/L6 and the consequential amendments to the title and Para.12/35 of the supporting text.

CHAPTER 10 LEISURE 319

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 11 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CHAPTER 11 COMMUNITY FACILITIES 320

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

11.1 POLICY CF1 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/CF1 proposes an amendment to Policy CF1 to include the addition of a reference to land east of St.Johns, Whittingham Hospital. This objection, made by the NHS Executive, is dealt with at Section 1.3 of this report. Further amendment is proposed to the wording of the policy which adequately deals with the objection made by GONW which is Conditionally Withdrawn.

Objections : O/71/15/CF1 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/42/12/CF1 SPORTS COUNCIL NORTH WEST REGION O/70/30/CF1 GONW (CW)

PBC Response no. :PBC/45

ISSUES:

11.1.1 Whether Policy CF1, as proposed to be changed:

(i) is confusing, in that it covers small-scale sports facilities which should be catered for by the Leisure policies;

(ii) should only refer to proposed allocations and, in that the remainder of the policy duplicates other policies, is unnecessary and contrary to Government advice given in PPG17.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

11.1.2 It is accepted by the Council that Policies L1 and L3 cover small-scale leisure facilities. Reference to such facilities in Policy CF1 is unnecessary and should be deleted.

Issue (ii)

11.1.3 The Council indicates that it is not seeking to usurp the decision-making role of others in determining whether health facilities, or other community facilities as defined in Para.13/1 of the DP, should remain open or be closed. However whilst this may not be the intention, I am in agreement with the objector that the second criterion of Policy CF1 leads the reader to such a conclusion. Furthermore there is no Government advice which requires that sites of redundant community facilities should be offered for other community facilities before disposal.

11.1.4 Whilst the Council considers the approach taken by Policy CF1 to be as applicable to buildings and facilities as it is to open space, I do not agree. The Council's view, expressed in Para.13/1 of the DP that: "the role of the Local Plan will be to seek to prevent the loss of essential

CHAPTER 11 COMMUNITY FACILITIES 321

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

services" goes well beyond the function of the plan which is to set out the Council's policies and proposals for the development and use of land. Whilst the intent of the Council is commendable, I do not consider Policy CF1 to be appropriate for inclusion within the plan. Part (b) of Policy CF1 should be deleted and replaced by wording which relates more to the intention to maintain the existing stock of premises or sites currently or last used for the provision of community facilities.

11.1.5 The Council in response to Issue (i) suggested that it might be helpful to recognise the close connection between Sections 12 and 13 of the plan by combining the two sections. In my view such a course of action is both desirable and necessary.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.11.1) the replacement of Part (b) of Policy CF1 to read:

"(b) The Borough Council will refuse planning permission for the development or change of use of premises or sites currently or last used for the provision of community facilities unless it is no longer practical or desirable to retain such premises." and that

(REC.11.2) the Council give consideration to the combination of Sections 12 and 13 of the plan

CHAPTER 11 COMMUNITY FACILITIES 322

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

11.2 POLICY CF2 - ALLOTMENTS:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/CF2 proposes amendments to the wording of the policy which adequately deal with the objection made by GONW which is Conditionally Withdrawn.

Objection : O/70/31/CF2 GONW (CW)

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.11.3) I recommend that the plan be modified by the incorporation of PIC/01/CF2.

CHAPTER 11 COMMUNITY FACILITIES 323

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 12 - DESIGN POLICIES

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 324

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

12.1 POLICY D1 - DESIGN CRITERIA

Objections : O/168/13/D1 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE O/70/32/D1 GONW O/129/14/D1 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION

PBC Response no. : PBC/46

ISSUES:

12.1.1 Whether;

(i) Policy D1 is clearly and unambiguously expressed and capable of implementation;

(ii) Para.14/20 unduly prohibits the provision of modern agricultural buildings;

(iii) the word redundant should be deleted from Para.14.11 of the supporting text.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

12.1.2 Para.7.11 of PPG12 indicates that policies and proposals should be clearly and unambiguously expressed. The Council accepts the essence of this objection and have sought to ameliorate the objector's concern under PIC/01/D1. This PIC makes it clear that planning applications will be assessed against the criteria set out in the policy and removes the words "account will be taken of" which are accepted as being ambiguous. However the Council does not accept that the term "high quality of design" is ambiguous in that it is an attempt to echo the goals set by the Government in its "Quality in Town and Country Initiative" and more latterly in PPG1. Both of these documents use the term "good design" which the Council has consciously not used. This term is considered to be more ambiguous than the words "high quality of design".

12.1.3 To my mind, however, it is the manner in which such terms are used within the policy which causes the ambiguity. Whether or not development accords with the criteria set out in the policy will determine whether "good" or "high quality design" is to be achieved. As used within the policy I consider the use of the term "high quality of design" is both ambiguous and likely

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 325

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

cause difficulties in the implementation of the policy. In my view PIC/01/D1 should be reworded to read: "In order to ensure a high quality of design, all planning applications for new building development will be assessed against all of the following criteria: (A)...... (B) the attention given to layout and form, including building lines and corner features and the commitment given to the use of quality materials, .....(C) the need to create.... (D) the need to ensure safety ..... (E) the need for landscape treatment ... (F) the need to ensure that energy conservation measures, including building orientation, are taken into account.".

Issue (ii)

12.1.4 The objector argues that the phrase in Para.14/20 of the supporting text, requiring new buildings in rural areas to "reflect the character of agricultural buildings in the area", could unduly prohibit the provision of modern agricultural buildings. The objector recommends the following alternative wording: "in rural areas buildings must fit into the surrounding landscape and not have an adverse impact on the character of traditional buildings in the area.".

12.1.5 Whilst the Council considers that the phrase in Para.14/20 of the DP accords absolutely with the para.8 of PPG1, this paragraph only indicates that schemes will need to fit in with and be complementary to their surroundings. To my mind this does not indicate that buildings should necessarily reflect the character of traditional buildings in the area but that such building development should reflect the characteristics of the area in which it is to be situated. The objector's proposed alternative relates only to the impact caused on the traditional buildings in the area. I consider therefore that, as Para.14/20 is intended to be consistent with para.8 of PPG1, its wording, for the sake of clarity, should reflect the wording of the PPG. Therefore the words "and reflect the character of traditional buildings in the area" should be replaced by the words "and fit in with and be complementary to their surroundings".

Issue (iii)

12.1.6 The Council accept that the word "redundant" should be removed from Para.14/11.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.12.1) Policy D1 being re-worded as follows:

"POLICY D1 - In order to ensure a high quality of design, all planning applications for new building development will be assessed against all of the following criteria: (A)...... (B) the attention given to layout and form, including building lines and corner features and the commitment given to the use of quality materials, .....(C) the need to create.... (D) the need to ensure safety ..... (E) the need for landscape treatment ... (F) the need to ensure that energy conservation measures, including building orientation, are taken into account.";

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 326

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(REC.12.2) the words "and reflect the character of traditional buildings in the area" in Paragraph 14/20 of the supporting text being replaced by the words "and fit in with and be complementary to their surroundings".

(REC.12.3) the word "redundant" be deleted from Paragraph 14/11 of the supporting text.

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 327

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

12.2 POLICY D2 - THE LOCAL CONTEXT:

Objection : O/71/16/D2 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST

PBC Response no. : PBC/47

ISSUE:

12.2.1 Whether the wording of the policy is unduly restrictive and duplicates other policies of the DP.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

12.2.2 The Council accepts that there is a degree of overlap between policies D2 and C4 which is generated by the use of the words "historic buildings" in Policy D2. It is proposed, therefore, to replace the word "historic" with the word "important" to emphasise the difference between the two policies. However, of essential difference between the two policies is the inclusion, within Policy D2, of the importance of views and landmarks within the landscape and the requirement for these to be taken into account in the design of developments.

12.2.3 The Council indicates that the essence of the policy is such that development which obscures or unacceptably diminishes the visual impact of important buildings, views or landmarks within the townscape will be refused. It is not considered possible to specify within the policy a comprehensive list of items considered to be important within the townscape. Without such a list I consider the policy is so loosely worded that it could be interpreted in an unreasonably restrictive manner. Consequently I agree with the objector that the second sentence of the policy should be deleted. Such a deletion would not affect the general principle of the policy which is, in my view, to ensure that new development respects the existing local context.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.12.4) the deletion of the second sentence of Policy D2.

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 328

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

12.3 POLICY D4 - SAFETY AND SECURITY:

Explanatory Note: PIC/04/D4 adequately covers the objection made by GONW which has been Conditionally Withdrawn.

Objection : O/70/33/D4 GONW (CW)

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.12.5) I recommend that the plan be modified by the inclusion of PIC/04/D4.

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 329

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

12.4 POLICY D6 - VISTAS:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/D6 adequately covers the objection made by GONW which has been Conditionally Withdrawn.

Objections : O/71/17/D6 NHS EXECUTIVE NORTH WEST O/70/34/D6 GONW (CW)

PBC Response no. :PBC/48

ISSUE:

12.4.1 Whether Policy D6 should refer only to the town centre vistas specified on Plan 7 of the DP.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

12.4.2 Objection is made that the vistas to be protected by Policy D6 should be listed within the plan and the policy re-worded as follows: "New development will not be allowed which could damage the following long distance views of the town centre.". The Council does not accept this suggestion to be suitable. The objective of the policy is not only to seek the preservation of long distance views, or views into the Town Centre, but to protect views both at a local more human level throughout the Borough, where views/vistas onto spaces or buildings contribute to the quality of the area.

12.4.3 The Council considers that it is not possible to specify within the policy a comprehensive list of items considered to be important within the townscape. However, without such a list, or reference on a plan, I consider the policy is so loosely worded that it could be interpreted in an unreasonably restrictive manner. Consequently I agree with the objector that it should refer only to those views or vistas that are able to be specified on a plan or in a list within the plan. However, the supporting text to the policy only refers to the "landmark buildings within the town centre and to the views and vistas both into and out of it". Consequently I conclude that the policy itself should refer only to those views/vistas that can be specified.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.12.6) the inclusion of PIC/01/D6 subject to the further amendment of the policy such that it reads:

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 330

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

"New development must not have an adverse effect on: (a) established long distance views into the town centre, particularly from the south; and (b) important local vistas which focus on landmark buildings; all as indicated on Plan 7.".

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 331

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

12.5 POLICIES D7, D8 & D9 THE LAYOUT OF DEVELOPMENT; ACCESSIBILITY; PUBLIC ART

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/D7, PIC/01/D8 & PIC/01/D9 adequately meet the objections made by GONW all of which have been Conditionally Withdrawn. No other objections are made to these policies.

Objections : O/70/35/D7 GONW (CW) O/70/36/D8 GONW (CW) O/70/37/D9 GONW (CW)

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.12.7) I recommend that the plan be modified by the inclusion of PIC/01/D7, PIC/01/D8 & PIC/01/D9.

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 332

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

12.6 POLICY D10 - PUBLIC ART AND NEW DEVELOPMENT:

Explanatory Note: Although the objection by GONW was considered to have been adequately met by PIC/01/D10 further objection was made to the PIC by the HBF. As such both objections are considered below.

Objections : O/70/38/D10 GONW (CW) OPC/89/10/D10 HOUSE BUILDERS FEDERATION

PBC Response no. : PBC/49

ISSUES:

12.6.1 Whether:

(i) the circumstances in which planning permission would be granted should be explained and reference to SPG be deleted from the policy;

(ii) the provision of works of public art should be expressed within the policy as a material consideration.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

12.6.2 PIC/01/D10 proposed the deletion of the first sentence of paragraph 1 of the policy and the substitution of "In determining planning applications for major schemes, the provision by the developer, of works of public art will be a material consideration.". It was also proposed that the reference to SPG be deleted from the policy and included within the cross reference section of the supporting text. The latter part of the proposed change is accepted but the reference to works of public art requires further consideration in relation to issue (ii).

Issue (ii)

12.6.3 It is accepted by the Council that the basis of the Percent for Art scheme is voluntary and that the provision of public art within a scheme can only be operated by means of a voluntary agreement with the developers. As such it cannot be a material consideration in the determination of a planning application. In my view, not only should reference to this matter as a material consideration be excluded from the policy, but it should be made clear, if such a policy is to be included within the plan, the provision of works of art is of a voluntary nature only.

12.6.4 I conclude that PIC/01/D10 should not be incorporated into the plan. The policy should be re-worded to reflect this conclusion and the reference to SPG removed.

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 333

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.12.8) the re-wording of Policy D10 to read:

"In determining planning applications for major schemes the local planning authority will promote, by means of a voluntary agreement, the provision of new works of art or craft by developers either as an integral part of the scheme or located off site in an appropriate location."; and, as such, that:

(REC.12.9) PIC/01/D10 not be accepted.

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 334

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

12.7 POLICIES D11, D12, D13 & D14 LANDSCAPE TREATMENT; HOUSING DEVELOPMENT; HOUSE EXTENSIONS; SHOP FRONTS

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/D11, PIC/01/12, PIC/01/13 & PIC/01/D14 adequately meet the objections made all of which have been Conditionally Withdrawn. No other objections are made to these policies.

Objections : O/70/39/D11 GONW (CW) O/128/30/D11 LCC (CW) O/70/40/D12 GONW (CW) O/70/41/D13 GONW (CW) O/70/42/D14 GONW (CW)

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.12.10) I recommend that the plan be modified by the inclusion of PIC/01/D11, PIC/01/12, PIC/01/13 & PIC/01/D14.

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 335

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

12.8 POLICY D15 - RETAIL WAREHOUSING AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT:

Explanatory Note: In order to clarify the policy the Council propose under PIC/01/D15 to amend criteria (b) and (c). Notwithstanding these proposed amendments the objections below remain to be considered.

Objections : O/70/43/D15 GONW O/126/6/D15 B & Q PLC

PBC Response no. :PBC/50

ISSUES:

12.8.1 Whether:

(i) Policy D1 is clearly and unambiguously expressed and capable of implementation;

(ii) Para.14/69 of the supporting text is unduly prescriptive and should be deleted.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

12.8.2 Para.7.11 of PPG12 indicates that policies and proposals should be clearly and unambiguously expressed. The Council does not accept that the objections are valid. In its view, the term "designed to a high standard" reads better than the alternative suggested by the objector i.e. "to a high/good quality". It is acknowledged however that the word "permitted" in the first sentence does not sufficiently explain the process of implementation. As such it is considered that the first sentence of the policy should be replaced as follows: "In order to obtain planning permission, retail warehousing and industrial development must be designed to a high standard and will be integrated into the townscape." Whilst the Council does not accept that the term "to a high standard" is ambiguous, in my view this term is capable of different interpretations. I consider it is the manner in which such a term is used in the policy that causes the ambiguity. Should the development accord with the criteria set out in the policy then the achievement of a "design to a high standard" will be likely to result.

Issue (ii)

12.8.3 Paragraph 14/69 explains that the intention of the policy is the avoidance of a "sea of car parking" around and adjacent to the major road frontages. Such car parking creates a hostile environment in the evening and an unpleasant void in the townscape throughout the rest of the day. The paragraph makes clear that the application of the policy would be dependent on the characteristics of the site. Given this qualification, I am satisfied that car parking to the rear

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 336

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

would not necessarily result in the need to provide unsightly servicing arrangements on the street frontage. Also, I accept that the Council's reasons for including the paragraph derive from worthy aims. I conclude therefore that Para.14/69 is not unduly prescriptive and should be retained in the plan.

12.8.4 In that it is not the Council's intention to unduly limit the amount of car parking, the Council has suggested an amendment to the paragraph making clear that it is only the majority of the associated car parking which should be located to the rear.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.12.11) the amendment of Policy D15 to read;

"In order to ensure a high standard of design and that development is well integrated into the landscape, all applications for planning permission for new retail warehousing and industrial development will be assessed against all of the following criteria: (A) the attention given to the layout of the site in order to create an attractive frontage; (B) the attention given to reducing the visual impact of the associated car parking; (C) the attention given to: the use of materials; roof design; the location and design of signs; the use of boundary and landscape treatment which is appropriate to its location.".

(REC.12.12) the amendment of the first sentence of Para.14/69 of the supporting text to read: "Depending ...... front of the site with the majority of the ....to the rear. ..."

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 337

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

12.9 POLICY D16 - ADVERTISEMENTS:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/D16 adequately meets the objection made which has been Conditionally Withdrawn. No other objection is made to this policy.

Objection : O/70/44/D16 GONW (CW)

RECOMMENDATIONS:

(REC.12.13) I recommend that the plan be modified by the incorporation of PIC/01/D16.

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 338

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

12.10 POLICY D18 - RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

Explanatory Note: The objection made by the British Wind Energy Association was submitted as a holding objection pending clarification by the Council as to whether the policy is relevant in the context of wind energy proposals specifically. No further representations have been made subsequent to the publication of the Council's response and as such I have taken no further action on this objection. LCC in response to PIC/01/D18 suggest an amendment to the wording of the policy in order to accord with the LSP. This proposal is accepted by the Council. My considerations and conclusions on these objections should be read together with those made on Para.14/20 of the supporting text at Section 12.1.

Objections : O/70/45/D18 GONW O/2/2/D18 NATIONAL FARMERS UNION O/129/17/D18 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION

OPC/128/58/D18 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

PBC Response no. : PBC/52

ISSUES:

12.10.1 Whether:

(i) Policy D18 is clearly and unambiguously expressed and capable of implementation;

(ii) the operational needs of agriculture, which is a material consideration, should be included within the policy.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

12.10.2 PIC/01/D18 was produced in order to satisfy this objection. Policy D18, as proposed to be changed, makes clear that in order to obtain planning permission any proposals must satisfy the policy and have particular regard to the listed criteria. The Council does not object to the proposed amendment suggested by LCC which would still satisfy the objection made by GONW and ensure that the policy accords with the LSP. The proposed amendments add clarity to the policy.

Issue (ii)

12.10.3 Whilst accepting the validity of the objection the Council is content that this matter is dealt with adequately in Para.14/72 of the supporting text. Given also that Policy D18, as

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 339

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

proposed to be changed under PIC/01/D18, further ameliorates this objection by making it clear that other overriding material considerations will apply, I am satisfied that the operational needs of agriculture will not be overlooked in the implementation of this policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.12.14) the amendment of Policy D18 to read as follows:

"In order to obtain planning permission for development in the rural area it must be demonstrated that proposals are in scale and keeping with the features of the landscape character tract and that they fit in with and are complementary to their surroundings, unless there are other overriding material considerations.

Proposals should have particular regard to the design characteristics of traditional buildings in the vicinity, particularly: (a) ..... (d).....".

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 340

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

12.11 POLICY D19 - THE CONVERSION OF RURAL BUILDINGS:

Explanatory Note: The Council has accepted that the objections made to this policy are all valid and has, under PIC/01/D19, proposed an amendment of the policy which adequately covers the objections.

Objections : O/70/46/D19 GONW (CW) O/164/5/D19d P WILSON AND COMPANY O/156/11/D19j LANCASHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST O/154/7/D19k RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION

PBC Response no. : PBC/53

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.12.15) I recommend that the plan be modified by the inclusion of PIC/01/D19.

CHAPTER 12 THE DESIGN POLICIES 341

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 13 - RENEWABLE ENERGY

CHAPTER 13 RENEWABLE ENERGY 342

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

13.1 POLICY RE1 - RENEWABLE ENERGY:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/RE1 proposes amendments to the wording of the policy which adequately deal with the objections made by GONW and the CPRE which are Conditionally Withdrawn. PIC/01/RENEW introduces a new policy concerned with wind turbines which covers the objection made by the British Wind Energy Association to the omission of such a policy.

Objections : O/129/16/RE0 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION O/129/15/RE1 BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION O/114/4/RE1 CPRE (CW) O/70/47/RE1 GONW (CW)

PBC Response no. :PBC/102

ISSUE:

13.1.1 Whether the policy requires an "overarching acceptability test" to balance any "harm" caused by the proposal with the benefits of wind turbines.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

13.1.2 The consideration of applications for wind turbines is fundamentally no different to the consideration of other development proposals. Both the positive and negative aspects of any proposal have to be taken into account by the decision maker. I consider that the policy, as proposed to be changed, adequately covers the objection.

13.1.3 The Council indicates that the supporting text will be written to refer to the special locational demands of wind energy installations. Although no suggested wording is before me I agree that such an explanation is necessary.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.13.1) the incorporation of PIC/01/RE and PIC/01/RENEW.

(REC.13.2) the inclusion within the supporting text of reference to the special locational demands of wind energy installations.

CHAPTER 13 RENEWABLE ENERGY 343

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 14 - SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 1

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

CHAPTER 14 - Explanatory Note:

Objections made concerning a number of omissions from the SS Policies have been dealt with elsewhere in this report as follows:-

NORWEB DEPOT, LANCASTER ROAD SECTION 7.32

RIBBLETON DEPOT, RIBBLETON STREET SECTION 8.32

147/148 CHURCH STREET SECTION 9.3

Also dealt with elsewhere are my considerations and conclusions concerning objections made to the following SS Sites:

POLICY SS4 - FOX STREET/CORPORATION STREET SECTION 9.3

POLICY SS5 - AVENHAM STREET SECTION 9.3

POLICY SS21 - DEEPDALE STREET/FLETCHER ROAD SECTION 7.3.4

POLICY SSNEW - NEW HALL LANE/LONDON ROAD SECTION 8.3.7

POLICY SS32 - WHITTINGHAM HOSPITAL SECTION 1.3.7

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 345

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

14.1 OMISSIONS FROM SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES: FULWOOD BARRACKS

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/G3 provides for the amendment of the Proposals Map to include all of the Barracks buildings within Site SS30. This adequately deals with the objection made by the objector.

Objection : O/193/2/SS0 DEFENCE ESTATES ORG. (CW) O/193/3/SS30 DEFENCE ESTATES ORG. (CW)

RECOMMENDATION:

(REC.14.1) I recommend that the plan be modified by the incorporation of PIC/01/G3

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 346

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

14.2 TOWN CENTRE SITES

*********************************

14.2.1 POLICY SS3 - LAND ADJACENT TO RINGWAY/FALKLAND STREET:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS3 provides for the deletion of the reference to SPG in the policy and adequately deals with the objection made by the objector.

Objection : O/70/48/SS3 GONW (CW)

*********************************

14.2.2 POLICY SS7 - ST JOSEPHS HOSPITAL, MOUNT STREET:

Objection : O/190/5/SS7 ARGENT GROUP PLC

PBC Response no. : PBC/113

ISSUES:

14.2.2.1 Whether the objection site should be included within the Principal Retail Core and the policy amended to make clear that a modest scale of retail development could be accepted.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

14.2.2.2 The Council considers that potential investment in the Principal Retail Core should not be diverted to the south of Theatre Street to ensure that the Fishergate Centre area would not benefit at the expense of retailing at the eastern end of the town centre shopping area. However, in that the Council are prepared to accept-small scale retail units as part of any change of use of the site from a nursing home there is little between the parties.

14.2.2.3 I have previously concluded (Section 9.3) that the Council have not demonstrated that there is any reasonable prospect of Site SS5 being comprehensively redeveloped for major retail purposes within the plan period. As such I consider the Council's view, that such investment on the objection site could damage investment in that eastern location, is not substantiated.

14.2.2.4 The development of the objection site for retail use, taking into account the need to protect the existing Grade II listed building and the need to satisfy the provisions of the conservation and design policies, would fully accord with the overall approach to build upon the

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 347

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

town centres shopping facilities. It would also help to ensure that the Principal Retail Core is further established along a north west to south east axis adding to the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole.

14.2.2.5 Although the Council refer to the fact that it is incumbent on it to consider the accessibility of the site, I consider that this argument is not well based. The site is close to the railway station, served by many bus routes and immediately adjacent to the existing Principal Retail Core. Furthermore the policy itself promotes uses, i.e small-scale A1, B1 and A3 uses, which also require good accessibility. I conclude, therefore, that the objection site should be included within the Primary retail Core and unrestricted A1 use be substituted for small-scale retail units within Policy SS7.

*********************************

14.2.3 POLICY SS8 - PRINCES BUILDING - LANCASTER ROAD:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS8 provides for the deletion of the reference to SPG in the policy and adequately deals with the objection made by the objector.

Objection : O/70/50/SS8 GONW (CW)

*********************************

14.2.4 POLICY SS9 - HILL STREET/RINGWAY

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS9 provides for the deletion of the reference to SPG in the policy and adequately deals with the objection made by GONW which is Conditionally Withdrawn.

Objections : O/117/1/SS9 TRUSTEES/ROMAN CATHOLIC PURPOSES REGISTERED O/70/51/SS9 GONW (CW)

PBC Response no. : PBC/121

ISSUE:

14.2.4.1 Whether it should be made clear that the redevelopment of the St. Mary's Church site (Policy SS10) will not be held back.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 348

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

14.2.4.2 The policy does not prejudice the redevelopment of the site of the former St.Mary's Church. The Council indicates that it is prepared to amend the supporting text to delete any reference to the site of the former St.Mary's Church and include a paragraph which explains the function of the Hill Street Car Park as a short stay car park for the secondary shopping frontage along Friargate Brow. This adequately satisfies the objection.

*********************************

14.2.5 POLICY SS10 - THE FORMER ST MARYS CHURCH, FRIARGATE BROW:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS10 makes provision for the incorporation of D1 and D2 uses as suggested by the objector. Objection is made to the PIC however to the non-inclusion of A1, A2 and A3 uses.

Objections : O/117/2/SS10 TRUSTEES/ROMAN CATHOLIC PURPOSES REGISTERED

OPC/117/3/SS10 TRUSTEES/ROMAN CATHOLIC PURPOSES REGISTERED

PBC Response no. : 115

ISSUE:

14.2.5.1 Whether Policy SS10 should be amended to include A1, A2 and A3 uses and the site boundary enlarged to encompass properties fronting Friargate Brow.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

14.2.5.2 The DP identifies the frontage onto Friargate as forming part of both the town centre shopping area subject to Policy S4 and the wider town centre defined on the Proposals Map. Given the existence of a walk through to Friargate from the objection site, which is used as a short stay car park, the objector argues that the site relates to the town centre as a whole. As such there is considered to be potential for the site to accommodate a wide range of town centre related uses.

14.2.5.3 Although Friargate is defined as lying within the town centre shopping area it is clearly of a secondary shopping nature being separated from the Principal Retail Core by Ringway. Friargate forms a secondary shopping appendage to the town centre shopping area where, under Policy S2, the Council propose, quite rightly in my view, to restrict retail development to small scale infill schemes, major retail redevelopment being restricted to the Principal Retail Core. I

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 349

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

consider therefore it to be appropriate that the Council seek to resist the consolidation of retail development behind the existing shopping frontages to Friargate. The Council are content however that the objection site, similarly to the designation of all other sites to the rear of Friargate, be redeveloped for town centre uses other than retail uses. It also has no objection to the site being redeveloped in conjunction with the existing secondary frontage, subject to Policy S4, as long as A1, A2 or A3 uses were retained at ground level on the Friargate frontage.

14.2.5.4 Such an approach is consistent with the retail strategy being promoted by the Council and is appropriate in what is clearly a secondary shopping area outside the Principal Retail Core. In reaching this conclusion I take the view that the objection site, whilst being within the town centre, is not a natural part of the town centre shopping area even though it is related to the secondary shopping area by a walk through from Friargate. I conclude that the Council's approach is consistent with the advice set out in both para.8 of PPG1 and para.2.13 of PPG6 in restricting development to those uses other than retail.

*********************************

14.2.6 POLICY SS11 - HOPE STREET/CORPORATION STREET:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS11 adequately deals with the objection made by the objector.

Objection : O/70/52/SS11 GONW (CW)

*********************************

14.2.7 POLICY SS13 - FORMER GOLD THREAD WORKS, AVENHAM ROAD:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS13 provides for the deletion of the reference to SPG in the policy and adequately deals with the objection made by the objector.

Objection : O/70/53/SS13 GONW (CW)

*********************************

14.2.8 POLICY SS16 - CHURCH STREET/POLE STREET:

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 350

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS16 provides for the deletion of the reference to SPG in the policy and adequately deals with the objection made by the objector.

Objection : O/70/54/SS16 GONW (CW)

*********************************

RECOMMENDATIONS: TOWN CENTRE SITES

I recommend that the plan be modified by:

(REC.14.2) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS3;

(REC.14.3) the inclusion of Site SS7 within the Principal Retail Core and the substitution of "Class A1 retail use" for "Small scale retail units" within Policy SS7;

(REC.14.4) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS8;

(REC.14.5) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS9 and the amendment of the supporting text: to delete any reference to the site of the former St.Mary's Church; and to include a paragraph to explain the function of the Hill Street car park as a short stay car park for the secondary shopping frontage along Friargate Brow;

(REC.14.6) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS10 and the amendment of the supporting text to make clear that the Council would have no objection to the site being redeveloped in conjunction with the existing secondary frontage, as long as A1, A2 or A3 uses are retained at ground floor level on the Friargate frontage, subject to the provisions of Policy S4 as proposed to be changed. The supporting text should also be amended to make clear that any redevelopment scheme may include a mixture of any of the proposed uses or any one in particular;

(REC.14.7) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS11;

(REC.14.8) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS13;

(REC.14.9) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS16.

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 351

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

14.3 INNER URBAN AREA SITES

*******************************

14.3.1 POLICY SS17 - BOW LANE MARKET STREET:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS17 provides for the deletion of the reference to SPG in the policy and adequately deals with the objection made by the objector.

Objection : O/70/55/SS17 GONW (CW)

*********************************

14.3.2 POLICY SS20 - CENTENARY MILL, NEW HALL LANE:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS20 provides for the deletion of the reference to SPG in the policy and adequately deals with the objection made by the objector.

Objection : O/70/56/SS20 GONW (CW)

*********************************

14.3.3 POLICY SS23 - BROCKHOLES VIEW/BIRLEY BANK:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS23 provides for the deletion of the reference to SPG in the policy and adequately deals with the objection made by the objector.

Objection : O/70/58/SS23 GONW (CW)

*********************************

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 352

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS: INNER URBAN AREA SITES

I recommend that the plan be modified by

(REC.14.10) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS17;

(REC.14.11) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS20;

(REC.14.12) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS23.

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 353

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

14.4 OUTER URBAN AND RURAL AREA SITES

*******************************

14.4.1 POLICY SS26 - CATTLE MARKET:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS26 provides for the deletion of the reference to SPG in the policy and adequately deals with the objection made by the objector.

Objection : O/70/59/SS26 GONW (CW)

*********************************

14.4.2 POLICY SS27 - RIVERSWAY PHASE B:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS27, in that it provides for the deletion of the reference to SPG in the policy and makes reference to nature conservation interests adequately deals with the objections made.

Objections : O/70/60/SS27 GONW (CW) O/128/31/SS27 LCC (CW)

*********************************

14.4.3 POLICY SS29 - SHAROE GREEN HOSPITAL:

Explanatory Note: As a result of negotiations between the parties substantial agreement has been reached in respect of both the policy and the reasoned justification. The only issue to be resolved is related to proposed revised Para.16/89. Para.16/89 as proposed to be amended concerns the hospital entrance building and its retention and re-use. Whilst objection is made to the wording of the SPG this is not before the Inquiry and as such I do not comment on the objection.

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 354

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

Objections : O/70/61/SS29 GONW (CW) O/96/2/SS29 PRESTON ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST O/96/1/SS29b PRESTON ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST OPC/96/4/SS29 PRESTON ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST

PBC Response no. : PBC/7

ISSUES:

14.4.3.1 Whether the hospital entrance building is of such merit that it warrants retention.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

14.4.3.2 Para.16/89 as proposed to be changed states: "The building to the rear of the Civic Hostel (which currently houses the main entrance to the Hospital) is also considered to be of some merit, together with the formal garden area which fronts it. The retention and re-use of this building for office or institutional use would lend character to any development.".

14.4.3.3 The Council considers the hospital entrance building to be of some merit, and aims to encourage developers to give very serious consideration to securing its retention when conceiving their proposals for the site. The building is considered to represent a good example of Victorian institutional architecture, contributing to the setting of the listed Civic Hostel by means of its symmetrical alignment with the listed building which has created harmonious arrangement of buildings and spaces. The building is a "curtilage structure" in terms of its relationship to the listed Civic Hostel and therefore listed building consent would be required to demolish the building. This latter point is not disputed by the objector.

14.4.3.4 However the objector points to the fact that the listing description of the Civic Hostel barely mentions the structures to the rear and notes that the original extensions have now been demolished. The listing description makes clear that the front elevation of the Hostel is its most important feature and the most important views of the Hostel are gained from the south across the formal garden.

14.4.3.5 The hospital entrance building is largely screened by other buildings and is not apparent from any long or medium distance views into the site. Whilst the Council considers that it contributes to the shorter views within the site from the east west access road I do not consider that these constitute any part of the setting of the Hostel which lies on the opposite side of the access road to the hospital entrance. Furthermore the rear of the Hostel is dominated by a group of undistinguished ancillary buildings which add little to its setting. Moreover in that the hospital entrance building was not listed in 1985 at the time the Hostel was surveyed it is clear that it is has no significant architectural merit.

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 355

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

14.4.3.6 Whilst the Council's text for Para.16/89 does not, in itself, require the retention of the building I consider there to be insufficient justification for its inclusion within the plan. Para.16/89 should therefore be deleted. The fact that the SPG for the site is considered by the objector to impose greater restriction on the development of the site is a matter that the Council will need to address with the objector in the reconsideration of the SPG taking into account the guidance given in para.42 and Annex A of PPG1.

14.4.3.7 The objector suggests an alternative wording which includes the following statement: "Whilst the Council will encourage the retention of the building, this will not be an overriding requirement and its future will be considered in the context of the proposals for the site as a whole.". Such a statement would ensure that consideration will be given to the retention of the building should it be found to be capable of accommodating a suitable use.

*******************************

14.4.4 POLICY SS31 - TENNYSON ROAD MILL:

Explanatory Note: PIC/01/SS31 provides for the deletion of the reference to SPG in the policy and adequately deals with the objection made by the objector.

Objection : O/70/62/SS31 GONW (CW)

************************************

14.4.6 POLICY SS33 - COTTAM HALL BRICKWORKS:

Explanatory Note: The objection made by Lancashire Wildlife Trust is Conditionally Withdrawn subject to the incorporation of the re-wording to Policy SS33 as suggested by the Council. Whilst this re-wording adequately covers the objection it is not agreed by the Trustees Cottam Hall Brickworks/G.Starky Estate. Matters associated with local nature reserves should be read in conjunction with my considerations and conclusions on Policy R6 at Section 2.7. The Council, under PIC/01/SS33 and PIC/02/SS33, propose to delete the Park and Ride designation from Policy SS33. Whilst this satisfies part of the objection made by Preston Friends of the Earth this PIC is also objected to by the Trustees Cottam Hall Brickworks/G.Starky Estate. With regard to the Park and Ride proposals I have concluded at Section 5.3 Policy T1 that the level of uncertainty that exists with regard to the provision of such facilities requires further investigation of the viability of such proposals before any firm conclusions can be reached.

Objections :

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 356

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

O/156/10/SS33 LANCASHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST (CW) O/153/24/SS33 PRESTON FRIENDS OF THE EARTH O/125/1/SS33 TRUSTEES COTTAM HALL BRICKWORKS/G.STARKY EST

OPC/125/3/SS33 TRUSTEES COTTAM HALL BRICKWORKS/G.STARKY EST

PBC Response nos. : PBC/23, 23a, 120 & 120a

ISSUES:

14.4.6.1 Whether:

(i) the Biological Heritage Site (BHS) should be protected in its entirety;

(ii) Policy SS33 should include residential use as part of a mixed use development of the objection site.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Issue (i)

14.4.6.2 The majority of the Cottam Hall Brickworks site is identified as a BHS under Policy R6. Policy SS33 recognises that the principle of development on the objection site had previously been established in the Fulwood and Western Suburbs Local Plan. In the case of the Brickworks site, its nature conservation value lies in the fact that the owners and operators have left the site undisturbed for a number of years. Given that the conservation of BHS's can, as recognised by LCC, "only be achieved in practice with the co-operation of the owners and occupiers of the land in question" the Council recognise that it is necessary to seek to secure such conservation measures in negotiations on detailed proposals. This is the only appropriate course of action and, as such, I consider that the former policy wording more accurately reflects the balance that has to be struck between environmental concerns and the need to bring about the redevelopment of this derelict site. In reaching this conclusion I note that as part of the illustrative proposals put forward by the Trustees Cottam Hall Brickworks/G.Starky Estate part of the BHS is set aside as an area of ecological interest.

Issue (ii)

14.4.6.3 The Council is promoting the development of the site primarily because it represents an opportunity to create employment in a predominantly residential area, thus helping to reduce the need to travel. However in reaching this conclusion, and in seeking to promote the development of this site, the Council considered that it would be unwise to include housing within the acceptable uses because it is known that landfill gas is present. The objector, however, does not seek a specific housing allocation under Policy H2 as it is recognised that housing development is not assured because of the uncertainty of the effect of landfill gas migration at the site. It is

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 357

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

considered however that Policy SS33 should not unnecessarily preclude housing development as part of any development scheme.

14.4.6.4 The Council considers that the confirmed or suspected presence of landfill gas represents physical constraint upon the release of the site for housing. As such it cannot be considered as being able to contribute to the five year supply of housing land. This lends weight to the Council's view that housing should not be considered as an appropriate use. Notwithstanding this situation, in terms of its general location, no evidence other than the presence of landfill gas is adduced by the Council against the development of the site. Whilst I accept that due caution must be exercised in the granting planning permission for development or redevelopment on or near landfill sites, Policy DPNEW2 makes provision for development on such sites and makes no distinction as to the type of development that might be envisaged. Given appropriate investigation, and the implementation of any required remedial measures, I consider that residential use on this site should not be ruled out unnecessarily.

14.4.6.5 Additional landfill gas investigations are currently in hand and it seems to me to be unduly restrictive to unnecessarily prevent housing development before the determination of the full extent of the problem. There may well be a realistic prospect that development can take place in combination with other appropriate uses on the site. Whilst I have had regard to the view that there is no requirement for additional residential land to be allocated, having regard to my conclusions with regard to Policy H2 (See Section 1.1) I do not consider that this is good reason on its own to recommend against the accommodation of housing on what is currently a derelict urban site. However, it is not challenged by the objector that this site provides an opportunity to create employment in a predominantly residential area. I consider therefore that the promotion of residential use, as one of the secondary uses within a mixed use development of the site, would be acceptable and likely to lead to an interesting form of development for this large derelict site.

14.4.6.6 Whilst the objector has submitted an illustrative layout for the area, the need for further appraisal and investigation regarding both "Park and Ride" and "Landfill Gas" precludes any specific conclusions being drawn as to the extent of residential allocation. As such, any residential development finally accommodated on the site would be considered as potential windfall and could not be allocated under Policy H2 of the plan.

14.4.6.7 The objector puts forward the view that alterations could be made to the policy, to either include residential as one of the combination of acceptable uses or to reflect the wording of the FWSLP by the introduction of the words "and other appropriate uses". However I consider the latter approach to be too vague and imprecise. Consequently I conclude that the policy should be amended to include specific reference to residential use as being acceptable and that reference should be made to the further evaluation of the viability of the site to accommodate park and ride facilities.

*********************************

RECOMMENDATIONS: OUTER URBAN AND RURAL AREA SITES

I recommend that the plan be modified by

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 358

PRESTON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN VOLUME 3 REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

(REC.14.13) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS26;

(REC.14.14) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS27;

(REC.14.15) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS29 as amended by Para.7.2 of PBC/7 and the amendment of Paras.16/87 - 92 as set out in Appendix MCP1 of Document 96a subject to the deletion of Para.16/89 and the substitution of the following wording: "Whilst the Council will encourage the retention of the building, this will not be an overriding requirement and its future will be considered in the context of the proposals for the site as a whole.";

(REC.14.16) the incorporation of PIC/01/SS31.

(REC.14.17) the amendment of Policy SS33 to read:

"Development will be permitted for a combination of the following uses:

Business (B1) Storage and Distribution (B8) Residential (C3) Appropriate Leisure Uses (A3 or C1) associated with the Lancaster Canal provided that:

(A) the area and management of part of this Biological Heritage Site is agreed for retention as a Local Nature Reserve; and

(B) the principal access to the site is from Tom Benson Way.

Further evaluation will be made as to the viability of the site to accommodate park and ride facilities as shown on the Proposals Map.". and that consequential amendments be made to Paras.16/105 and 16/107.

END OF REPORT

CHAPTER 14 SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES 359