PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

IN RELATION TO

GOOSNARGH COTTAGE, WHITTINGHAM LANE LAND SOUTH OF WHITTINGHAM LANE LAND AT SWAINSON FARM, LANE LAND NE. OF SWAINSON FARM, GOOSNARGH LANE BUSHELLS FARM, MILL LANE LAND NORTH OF WHITTINGHAM LANE

PINS REF: APP/N2345/W/20/3258890 APP/N2345/W/20/3258894 APP/N2345/W/20/3258896 APP/N2345/W/20/3258898 APP/N2345/W/20/3258912 APP/N2345/W/20/3267524

APRIL 2020

Lancashire County Council April 2020

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This note sets out County Councils (LCC's) request for Planning Obligations as set out in the CIL compliance statements associated with the following Appeals:

APP/N2345/W/20/3258890 Goosnargh Cottage Public Inquiry APP/N2345/W/20/3258894 South of Whittingham Lane Public Inquiry APP/N2345/W/20/3258896 Swainson Farm Public Inquiry APP/N2345/W/20/3258898 Land north east of Swainson Farm Public Inquiry APP/N2345/W/20/3258912 Bushells Farm Public Inquiry APP/N2345/W/20/3267524 Land North of Whittingham Lane Public Inquiry

Gladman with regard to appeal APP/N2345/W/20/3267524 Land North of Whittingham Lane (planning application 06/2018/0867) have raised two questions relating to the requested obligations:

1. In light of the already improved service serving Goosnargh, do LCC still consider that a bus service contribution is necessary?

2. If the answer to (1) is yes, what is the specific purpose of the contribution and can LCC set out the proportionality of the contributions requested to the intended project?

2.0 NECESSITY OF CONTRIBUTION

2.1 When consulted on the applications above LCC's recommendation was to request that each developer contribute Section 106 monies to support sustainable transport and provide public transport improvements. Whilst Preston City Council's Planning Committee resolved to refuse the discussed applications, there were actually no highway related reasons for refusal on any of the applications, subject to requested conditions and subject to individual Section 106 Agreements to cover related public transport matters. These applications are now the subject of this public inquiry.

2.2 Question 1: In light of the already improved service serving Goosnargh, do LCC still consider that a bus service contribution is necessary?

2.3 Answer 1: - Yes, the public Transport contribution is still necessary.

Page 1

2.4 The requests made by LCC regarding public transport contributions precede the bus services that served Goosnargh ceasing to be commercially operated in November 2019. The services ceased due to being no longer viable to operate. Consequently, Lancashire County Council resolved to commission and finance alternative services, undertaken through a tender process. Lancashire County Council predominantly finances these replacement services, with developer funding that has already been secured making up 30% of the total cost (the total cost for the current level of service being provided approximately £600,000 annually).

2.5 The funding Lancashire County Council put in place is short-term, intended to support the services until demand is sufficient for them to become commercially viable. Build out of consented developments will play a role in this. The level of funding currently in place is volatile as administration changes and budget constraints impact upon it. In this regard, there has been no improvement to the services serving Whittingham and Goosnargh in real terms, due to the level of funding uncertainty. There are necessary improvements (para 3.4) to realise bus services that encourage sustainable transport uptake to ensure these services become financially viable for private operators.

2.6 Should these developments come forward, LCC still consider that the public transport contributions are necessary.

3.0 PURPOSE OF CONTRIBUTIONS REQUESTED

3.1 The second question relates to the intended purpose of the contributions and proportionality in relation to the proposed developments.

3.2 If the answer to (1) is yes, what is the specific purpose of the contribution and can LCC set out the proportionality of the contributions requested to the intended project?

3.3 The following services are the services which LCC is currently operating in the vicinity of the developments. The 45 is the direct route with higher demand during peak, as the 46 enables access to other areas and has a longer journey time.

SERVICE 45 PRESTON - BROUGHTON - - RIBCHESTER – via Fulwood - Royal Preston Hospital - Goosnargh - Whittingham - Salesbury - Wilpshire Monday – Saturday 7am - 7pm Hourly Sunday 9.30am – 6.40pm Two Hourly

Page 2

SERVICE 46 PRESTON - BROUGHTON – LONGRIDGE via Fulwood - - Goosnargh - Whittingham Monday – Saturday 7am - 7pm Hourly No Sunday Service

3.4 The purpose of the funding is to provide the following service improvements: -

• Enhance Direct Service 45 peak time journey frequency to half-hourly, extending throughout the day if demand requires (Cost £100-120k per annum - £500-£600k over 5 years)

• Enhance Sunday Service 45 to hourly from two-hourly (Cost £40-48k per annum - £160- 240k over 5 years)

• Enhanced the length of service 45 during the day by offering evening journeys until 11.30pm to access and support city centre leisure/employment opportunities (£60-72k per annum - £300-360k over 5 years)

• Continuing support for the existing service levels as needed.

3.5 The total cost of providing this level of service, is estimated to cost between £960,000 to £1,200,000 over 5 years, the usual period of time LCC would expect contributions for. LCC's Public Transport Team provided pro-rata costs (based on the latest tender price submissions received by LCC).

3.6 The proposed improvements enhance the service to ensure its long-term sustainability and viability with the needs of all users being met. Notwithstanding the benefit of the enhanced service, the general availability of public transport serving the area is necessary to ensure sustainable patterns of growth and mitigate unacceptable levels of car dependency. Should the funding Lancashire County Council has in place reduce, the contributions would be required to ensure existing service levels are maintained.

4.0 PROPORTIONALITY OF CONTRIBUTIONS REQUESTED

4.1 The total request across the sites is £810,000, to enable Lancashire County Council to provide a range of services as set out above. Based on the requirements there is a shortfall of £150,000 - £390,000. In supporting sustainable development and not to result in development not being viable LCC intends overcome this risk by using service revenue and the Governments emerging Enhanced Partnerships funding stream. This decision has been taken to ensure that

Page 3

the burden on the development sites is reasonable. It is the policy of the Local Highways Authority to support sustainable development coming forward in line with the NPPF.

4.2 The table below sets out the requests from LCC for the public transport improvements. This works out at £1454.21 per dwelling.

No of Trigger Point for Contribution in Appeal Site Address Contribution Units Draft s106 Agreement

A Goosnargh Cottage 65 £94,524.223 No more than 50% Occupation

B Land South of Whittingham Lane 80 £116,337.76 No more than 50% Occupation

C Swainson Farm 40 £58,168.76 Prior to any Occupation

D NE Swainson Farm 87 £126,517.05 Prior to any Occupation

E Bushells Farm 140 £203,590.66 Prior to Occupation of 31st unit

G Land North of Whittingham Lane 145 £210,861.76 Prior to Occupation of 31st unit

Total 557 £810,000.22

5.0 CIL AND POLICY COMPLIANCE

5.1 Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) set tests in respect of planning obligations, stating:

A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if the obligation is -

• Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms,

• Directly related to the development,

• Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

5.2 In order to make the development acceptable and bring it in line with the objectives of sustainable development, it is reasonable to seek planning contributions where a development

Page 4

should have an adverse impact on local infrastructure and ensure there are suitable alternatives, i.e. reduce car use and ensure availability of public transport. The request made provides improvements that ensure appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up (NPPF Para 108).

5.3 The contributions requested ensure the development proposals make appropriate provision for public transport (Preston Local Plan Policy ST2), safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users (NPPF para 108), and the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility [are addressed] (NPPF para 110).

5.4 The note prepared has set out as clearly as possible the position with the public transport serving this site. It is considered by LCC that there is sufficient justification for the request and that it is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The provision of a long-term service is dependent on the service improvements set out and a return to financial viability. The contributions requested as part of the proposed developments play an essential role in this.

5.5 The contributions requested ensure high quality public transport is accessible to the occupants of the developments, they are directly related to the development.

5.6 Government guidance makes it clear that developers may reasonably be expected to pay for or contribute to the cost of all, or part of that additional infrastructure. Although the effect of wider infrastructure may confer some wider benefit the payments should be directly related in scale and kind to the development. Lancashire County Council has committed to using revenue and exploring other funding streams to ensure that an enhanced service can be provided to make sure that the burden is reasonable on the developments, and it is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the developments.

5.7 As stated, a possible change in administration could influence funding levels. Where this were to occur, managing risk LCC would seek to ensure current levels of public transport service to the developments are retained and a reduced level of improvement may occur. In these circumstances, the contributions are necessary to ensure the sites continue to be served by public transport.

5.8 Securing such obligations will help to ensure that the impact of the proposed developments can be mitigated to make the development acceptable in physical planning and operational terms.

Page 5