West Replacement Local Plan Summary of Objections Received During Re-Deposit Period (Jan-Feb 2005)

Policy GEN Policy: GEN General points Surname Rusbridge Company English Nature Reference F/1085/201/GEN/O 1085 Objection Maintains previous objection. Reference should be made within other relevant strategies and plans to the Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). (F) Response There are many relevant plans and policies contained within the Local Plan. However only strategic plans that are relevant to the making of the Local Plan are mentioned within Chapter 1. Lancashire's BAP is considered an influential document, particularly within policy EN1 (Biodiversity) where it is mentioned within the key background documents. Recommendation No Change

Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/201/GEN/O 1098 Objection Recommend that mention be made within the Plan to the fact the Lancashire car parking standards apply. Any reference to PPG7 should be changed to PPS7. (F) Response Agree to amend Plan document to include reference to PPS7. Reference to the Lancashire Car Parking Standards is made in policy GD1 (xvii) and therefore no change is considered necessary. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/201/GEN/O 1111 Objection Throughout the Plan, the list of background documents refers to the 'Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Deposit Edition Proposed Changes (July 2003)'. This reference should be updated. (F) Response It is acknowledged this reference should be updated where necessary. Recommendation Change

Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/202/GEN/O 1111 Objection In the key, the symbol for market towns is not the same as on Map 2. (F) Response There is no symbol for "market towns" on the key or on the maps. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 1 Policy GEN Surname Hubbard Company The National Trust Reference F/1128/201/GEN/O 1128 Objection The Council ignores the fundamental principle of protecting and improving the environment within the key aims and objectives at the start of the plan. The Plan should also include a specific policy relating to the protection and improvement of the environment. (S) Response It is agreed to amend para 2.1 to include 'To protect and enhance the environment.' It is considered that the promotion and protection of the District's environment is fully covered within policies EN1, EN2, EN5, EN6, EN7, EN8 and EN9. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Oley Company Reference F/1133/202/GEN/O 1133 Objection The Plan does not offer equal treatment to public transport users, emphasis is mainly on road transport. A WLDC railcard should be offered to WLDC residents to allow free rail travel between and Liverpool / Southport and Preston. Schemes have been implemented elsewhere in the UK. (S) Response Producing a railcard for is a scheme that would not be in the remit of the Local Development Plan. Any scheme set up would have to primarily involve the rail operators and Lancashire County Council. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company Gore Hill Farm Reference F/1967/201/GEN/O 1967 Objection A further policy should be added to the Local Plan relating to the development of agricultural facilities. (S) Response Policy DS2 allows for the erection of new buildings for agriculture, with development having to meet the various criteria set out in Policy GD1. In addition Policy DE6 deals with the rural economy, and DE7 agricultural produce packing facilities. Recommendation No Change

Surname Sears Company Parish Council Reference F/2232/207/GEN/O 2232 Objection Recommendations in the Action Plan for the North Meols Parish Plan be moved forward, relating to issues such as Flood Risk, Open Space / Playing Fields, Housing, Environment and Employment. (S) Response It is considered that existing policies within the Local Plan fully consider all issues raised within the attached 'SPG'. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Coronation Park Surname Gallagher Company Reference F/1204/201/GEN/O 1204 Objection Objects to the Local Plan as it does not include plans for a model boating lake at Coronation Park. (S) Response The provision of a model boat lake would be considered under policy SC1 and does not require specific mention in any other part of the Plan Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 2 Policy GEN Coronation Park Surname Gee Company Reference F/1208/201/GEN/O 1208 Objection Objects to the Local Plan as it does not include plans for a model boating lake at Coronation Park. (S) Response The provision of a model boat lake would be considered under policy SC1 and does not require specific mention in any other part of the Plan Recommendation No Change

Coronation Park Surname Ruscoe Company Reference F/1607/201/GEN/O 1607 Objection Objects to the Local Plan as it does not include plans for a model boating lake at Coronation Park. (S) Response The provision of a model boat lake would be considered under policy SC1 and does not require specific mention in any other part of the Plan Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 3 Policy DS1 Policy: DS1 Location of Development Surname Company Northern Trust Company Ltd Reference F/1032/201/DS1/O 1032 Objection Paragraph 3 essentially restricts development to that which meets an employment, community or social need and as such the term small scale is not necessary. The words small scale need to be deleted from Policy DS1.3 (S) Response Small scale is appropriately used in this context as part 3 of the Policy deals with the rural settlements, where only small scale development would be appropriate. Recommendation No Change

Surname Rusbridge Company English Nature Reference F/1085/203/DS1/O 1085 Objection Supports the intention of this policy, however, the policy fails to make clear that areas and features of nature conservation interests can occur on previously developed land. Additional text which is attached to form should be added to paragraph 4 and 2.8 respectively. There is also no provision within this Policy for the protection of protected species which may be adversely affected by the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt, a further point should be included in paragraph 5 and additional text should be added to paragraph 6. (S) Response Part 4 of the Policy is specifically concerned with protecting open spaces (which could also be brownfield sites). Policies GD1 and EN1 would ensure that areas of ecological interest were taken account of in any development proposals. Policy DS1 is more concerned with the general location of development. Recommendation No Change

Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/202/DS1/O 1098 Objection The justification in para 2.7 of 'accommodation to meet the specific needs of the community' includes accommodation for students. It is not clear why special needs should be made for students, recommends either delete or justify this reference. (F) Response Student accommodation is an important issue particularly within Ormskirk. Where the provision includes shared facilities this does not add to the housing supply figures and therefore the Council's Managing Housing Supply SPG suggests that such accommodation would no rmally need to demonstrate shared facilities. The justification at para 2.7 (and in Policy DE1) will be amended to refer to this. Recommendation Change

Surname Iddon Company Reference F/1105/201/DS1/O 1105 Objection Include as a market town key service centre. Infill sites should be permitted for development. (S) Response It has already been determined through the Replacement Structure Plan that Tarleton should not be designated as a Key Service Centre. Allowing infill in Tarleton would lead to an oversupply of housing. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 4 Policy DS1 Surname Hubbard Company The National Trust Reference F/1128/202/DS1/O 1128 Objection In section 2 of the policy 'wherever possible' is a little unfortunate and potentially ambiguous. Amend this sentence to read 'Wherever possible development should be located on previously developed sites and sites should be…..' (S) Response The wording could be changed as suggested to improve clarity. Recommendation Change

Surname Clayton Company South Residents Association Reference F/1152/204/DS1/O 1152 Objection The North West Metropolitan Area (NWMA) and Regeneration Priority Area (RPA) should be defined as areas which lie within the former new town area only. (S) Response The NWMA and RPA apply to the whole of as defined for planning purposes by the Local Plan. It is the District Council's view, therefore, that there is no need to define a separate area on the Proposals Map as it will simply apply to all of Skelmersdale as excluded from the Green Belt. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company Mainsprint Limited Reference F/1154/203/DS1/O 1154 Objection should not be in the same category as the smaller rural settlements. The Replacement Structure Plan provides for development in such settlements and does not exclude residential development. Mixed use regeneration projects are mentioned as being acceptable in Policy 12. Response The Council does not accept that housing is the only means to regenerate the East Quarry site. Appley Bridge is not given any special status in the Replacement Structure Plan, despite representations seeking this at the EIP. All policies in the Structure Plan (including Policy 12) have to be read in conjunction with the other policies of the Plan, particularly Policy 5 in this instance. The Local Plan interprets this accordingly within Policies DS1 and DE1, and does allow for development, although not market housing. This is appropriate given the housing supply situation in the District. Any housing would only be considered as an exception to Policy should all other avenues have been explored. Recommendation No Change

Surname Iddon Company Reference F/1178/202/DS1/O 1178 Objection Amendment to criterion 3 is supported but the definition of special needs housing in para 2.7 is considered too restrictive and contrary to Policy 5 of the Replacement Structure Plan. (S) Response The restriction to exclude market housing accords with Policy 5 of the Replacement Structure Plan and is necessary to prevent an oversupply of housing land in the District. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 5 Policy DS1 Surname Wiltshire Company Campaign to Protect Rural CPRE Reference F/1181/209/DS1/O 1181 Objection No consideration given to adverse impact of development on sites adjacent to environmentally or historically important sites. and Rufford have been interchanged on Map 2. Response Map 2 will be amended to correct the error. The other proposed change is not necessary as such proposals would be judged under Policies GD1 and EN1 in any case. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Company Demick (Shipping) Ltd Reference F/2266/203/DS1/O 2266 Objection Policy is too restrictive for development outside of the main settlements. Only small scale development to meet local needs is at odds with employment area designations in the villages e.g. Tarleton Mill. (S) Response The policy accords with the settlement hierarchy set out in the Replacement Lancashire Structure Plan. Policy DE5 allows for employment development on sites such as Tarleton Mill, and Policy DS1 needs to be read in conjunction with this policy. Recommendation No Change

Burscough Canal Wharf Liverpool Road North Surname Gill Company Parish Council Reference F/1393/205/DS1/O 1393 Objection Seek the inclusion of the Canal Wharf Site, Burscough, as a development opportunity site (F) Response It is agreed that the Canal Wharf site should be designated under Policy DE14 as a Development Opportunity Site where community facilities and leisure/tourism uses would be appropriate Recommendation Change

Skelmersdale Elmers Green Lane Surname Cheetham Company Reference F/1795/201/DS1/O 1795 Objection Wooded clough by footpath from Birch Green Road to Elmers Green Lane should be protected by policy EN1. The area is a historic, wildlife haven, of high landscape quality and visual amenity. (S) Response Whilst the site has not been recognised as one of ecological importance, the Council does consider that the land would appropriately be designated as Green Space under Policy EN8. The land will be assessed for its ecological importance in the near future and its designation reviewed again accordingly. Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 6 Policy DS1 Tarleton Websters Church Road Surname Buffey Company Acland and Bracewell Surveyors Limited Reference F/1072/203/DS1/O 1072 Objection Car park area to the rear of Websters should be included within the retail area as it is vital to their long term strategic development plans. (S) Response The land in question is currently largely an open grassed area and it forms a buffer between the retail activities and residential properties. Retail or ancillary uses on this land would harm residential amenity and the land is more appropriately included within the settlement area. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 7 Policy DS2 Policy: DS2 Protecting the Green Belt Surname Broad Company Parish Council Reference F/1030/202/DS2/O 1030 Objection Objects that the Local Plan only allows very limited affordable housing to be built on Green Belt land. (F) Response The Policy is in line with national guidance contained within PPG2, which would only allow for limited affordable housing development within the Green Belt. Recommendation No Change

Surname Buffey Company Acland and Bracewell Surveyors Limited Reference F/1072/206/DS2/O 1072 Objection The local plan do es not provide support for agricultural development in the Green Belt. New policy is needed which supports essential agricultural facilities provided impact is mitigated. (S) Response Policy DS2 allows for the erection of new buildings for agriculture, with development having to meet the various criteria set out in Policy GD1. In addition Policy DE6 deals with the rural economy, and DE7 agricultural produce packing facilities. Recommendation No Change

Surname Rusbridge Company English Nature Reference F/1085/204/DS2/O 1085 Objection Maintains objection. English Nature generally support for the policy, but the objection is raised on the grounds that neither the policy nor its justification refer to the positive uses to which Green Belt could be put. Para 2.10 of the Plan quotes 5 purposes of the Green Belt as they appear in PPG2. However no mention is made in the Plan of the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.6 of PPG2. This objective should take precedence over land-use objectives. There need not be any conflict between purposes and objectives which would prevent the Council from taking a positive stance on the use of the land in the Green Belt. Also there is no provision for the protection of protected species. (S)

Response Policy DS2 allows uses which preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Policy EN1 deals with biodiversity, and it is not necessary to make changes to this policy. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company Mainsprint Limited Reference F/1154/202/DS2/O 1154 Objection The rail pad at West Quarry, Appley Bridge, should be removed from the Green Belt as it is suitable for development. (S)

Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. This matter has already been considered through the local plan process. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 8 Policy DS2 Surname Wiltshire Company Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE Reference F/1181/201/DS2/O 1181 Objection The policy is too prescriptive as it excludes sustainable dwellings, made from biodegradable materials such as timber, straw, earth etc. (F) Response There is no guidance in PPG2 Green Belts which suggests that exceptions should be m ade for such types of dwelling. Recommendation No Change

Surname Dalton Company Reference F/1669/202/DS2/O 1669 Objection Suggested new criteria for the policy to allow people to build single small dwellings on their land or in their existing curtilage fo r long term local residents who due to their age, proven health problem, disability or social need, need special accommodation. (S) Response Whilst the Policy allows for limited affordable housing in the Green Belt, it would go beyond the advice in PPG2 - Green Belts to allow other types of housing. Such housing is allowed as an exception to the housing restrictions in Policy DE1. Although this would not apply to the Green Belt such specialist accommodation could therefore be provided in nearby settlements which would also be more sustainable locations. Recommendation No Change

Rothwells Mushroom Farm Surname Harrison Company Reference F/2031/201/DS2/O 2031 Objection Houses would be preferred to the long standing smell from Rothwell's Mushroom Farm. (F) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. The fact that there is a smell from the farm is not sufficient justification to remove land from the Green Belt and permit housing development. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company Harrison Leisure UK Ltd Reference F/2191/203/DS2/O 2191 Objection Changes to resolve the objection should include an additional category under point 1: The replacement, extension, or alteration of buildings in established commercial use. (S) Response The Council sought a similar policy approach in the last Local Plan. The GONW objected to such a policy stance due to the fact that PPG2 makes no reference to such matters. It is therefore considered that such suggested wording would not be appropriate. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 9 Policy DS2 Aughton Prescot Rd/Long Lane/ Parrs Lane Long Lane / Parrs lane Surname Company Redrow Homes (Lancashire) Ltd Reference F/1365/201/DS2/O 1365 Objection Land at Parrs Lane/Long Lane should be removed from the Green Belt and safeguarded to meet future development needs. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Recommendation No Change

Prescot Rd/Long Lane/ Parrs Lane Long Lane / Parrs lane Surname Sabine Company Reference F/1959/201/DS2/O 1959 Objection Would support the sale of land for new building at Parrs Lane, and the building of new houses at Parrs Lane. Would like to see the sale of some Green Belt land for the development of smaller houses. (F) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Recommendation No Change

Long Lane/ Parrs Lane Long Lane / Parrs lane Surname Bleasdale Company Bleasdale Investments Ltd Reference F/2238/201/DS2/O 2238 Objection Fully support removal of land from the Green Belt at Long Lane/Parrs lane for further housing. There is a need to build additional housing in Aughton in an attempt to balance supply and demand. Land at Little Moor Farm would be next logical area for development. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Recommendation No Change

Prescot Rd/Long Lane/ Parrs Lane Long Lane / Parrs lane Surname Bleasdale Company Reference F/2294/201/DS2/O 2294 Objection Fully support removal of land from the Green Belt at Long Lane/Parrs lane for further housing. The Land at Little Moor Farm would be next logical area for development and would round off this area of Aughton. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Recommendation No Change

Prescot Rd/Long Lane/ Parrs Lane Long Lane / Parrs lane Surname Company Fenwick St Investments Ltd Reference F/2300/201/DS2/O 2300 Objection Development on land at Prescot Road/Parrs Lane/Long Lane would be a natural rounding off of this area of Aughton. More middle class housing needed. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 10 Policy DS2 Land at Bickerstaffe Colliery Rainford Road Surname Kemp Company Reference F/2127/201/DS2/O 2127 Objection Land at the former Bickerstaffe Colliery should be removed from the Green Belt to facilitate development which would create local job opportunities e.g. hotel/leisure uses, for which permission has been granted for in the past. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. The creation of job opportunities is not sufficient justification for removing land from the Green Belt. Recommendation No Change

Burscough Moss Nook Moss Nook Surname Company Robert Bridge & Sons Reference F/1198/201/DS2/O 1198 Objection Seeks redefinition of area of land formerly a coal yard at Moss Nook, Burscough from Green Belt to being within the main settlement. (S) Response See response to first deposit representation - there are no special circumstances which would justify excluding the land in question from the Green Belt.. Recommendation No Change

49 Moss Lane, Burscough Moss Lane Surname Donohoe Company Reference F/1441/201/DS2/O 1441 Objection My land is between two residential areas and the Green Belt boundary runs through a paddock. The Green Belt boundary fails to follow a recognisable feature on the ground. (F) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Recommendation No Change

Land south of Industrial Estate Tollgate Road Surname Company Westmorland Farm Holding Ltd Reference F/1550/202/DS2/O 1550 Objection The Green Belt boundary at the southern edge of the Burscough Employment Area site which is currently being developed should be adjusted to allow for access to land to the east within the employment area. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. There is no recognisable boundary along which a new Green Belt boundary could be drawn. Any access for the land to the east would need to be considered on its merits to determine if exceptional circumstances exist. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 11 Policy DS2 Yew Tree Farm Liverpool Road North Surname Company Westmorland Farm Holding Ltd Reference F/1550/201/DS2/O 1550 Objection The farmhouse and outbuildings at Yew Tree Farm, Liverpool Rd North/Higgins Lane, Burscough, should be excluded from the Green Belt to allow for restoration and development. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Recommendation No Change

Land south of Warpers Moss Lane Warpers Moss Lane Surname Hampson Company Reference F/1843/201/DS2/O 1843 Objection Land to the south of dwellings on Warpers Moss Lane, Burscough, (2 fields - plan enclosed) should be released from the Green Belt for development. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Recommendation No Change

Land south of Warpers Moss Lane Warpers Moss Lane Surname Dalton Company Reference F/1910/201/DS2/O 1910 Objection Land to the south of Warpers Moss Lane (2 fields) should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for development

Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Recommendation No Change

Land south of Industrial Estate Tollgate Road Surname Crompton Company Reference F/2230/201/DS2/O 2230 Objection Land to the south of Site DE5.1.19 at the Burscough Industrial Estate (plan attached) should be removed from the Green Belt and be safeguarded for either mixed development or employment uses. The deletion of the site at Pippin Street means more employment land will be needed in Burscough. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. There is still land to be developed at Burscough, and the Replacement Structure Plan directs additional employment land to Skelmersdale. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 12 Policy DS2 Surname Duffy Company Downholland Parish Plan Steering Group Reference F/2166/201/DS2/O 2166 Objection Policy restricts new buildings and their use and suggests that in practice the LO Jeffs site is the only available site for providing housing of a particular type and limited light industrial commercial use, or for providing local services. (F) Response The Green Belt policy (Policy DS2) is not concerned with the LO Jeffs site. The Green Belt policy is in accordance with national planning guidance. Recommendation No Change

Halsall Former allotments, Segars Lane Segars Lane Surname Grice Company Reference F/1906/202/DS2/O 1906 Objection Land to the north of Segars Lane, (former allotment gardens) should be removed from the Green Belt and designated for affordable housing. It is in a sustainable location. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Affordable housing could be considered as an exception to Green Belt policy under Policy DS2.1(iv) if the need were proven and there were no suitable sites in the settlement area or in nearby settlements. Recommendation No Change

Lathom Vale Lane Vale Lane Surname Holbert Company Reference F/1001/201/DS2/O 1001 Objection Land south of Vale Lane, Skelmersdale/Lathom, should be allocated for employment purposes and it should be clearly explained why this land is not preferred to land south of Skelmersdale. (S) Response The land south of Vale Lane is not preferred to the other employment land selected owing to the fact that the land is known to have serious ground condition problems due to former mineworking activities. Also the land is adjacent to several residential properties on Vale Lane. Access is not as direct to the motorway as land at White Moss Business Park. Recommendation No Change

Vale Lane/Spa Lane Vale Lane / Spa Lane Surname Company NW Skelmersdale Land Owners Reference F/1180/202/DS2/O 1180 Objection Land to the north of Spa Lane/Vale Lane should be released for development. Land at Pimbo proposed for release by the Council is likely to be developed by one company and the market for the land at White Moss (B1 only) is not good in Skelmersdale. No study was done of the Spa Lane land. (S) Response The Council have had the consultants review the land in question and the conclusion of the study is still that land at White Moss and Pimbo represents the best option for finding extra employment land. Release of Green Belt land at Vale Lane for employment purposes would impact upon residential properties, upon the Area of Landscape History Importance and the Conservation Area directly to the north. There could also be ground condition problems with this land due to former mineworking activity. This site is also further from the motorway than the land which the Council is seeking to bring forward at White Moss. It is also noted that there has been considerable support from local people for maintaining the Green Belt boundary at this location, which support aspects of the Council's case. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 13 Policy DS2 r/o dwellings at corner of Dicket's Dickets Lane Surname Ashcroft Company Reference F/1629/201/DS2/O 1629 Objection Land to the rear of dwellings at the corner of Dicket's Lane/Wigan Road, Lathom, (marked red on plan) should be excluded from the Green Belt. Agriculture is not possible, and land was formerly used by brick company. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Inability to use the land for agriculture is not sufficient justification to remove this land from the Green Belt. The land in question is in an area completely washed over by the Green Belt. Recommendation No Change

Mere Brow Land at 4 The Gravel The Gravel Surname Lawson Company Reference F/1037/201/DS2/O 1037 Objection Land at 4 The Gravel, , should be excluded from the Green Belt for affordable housing development. There are no other sites available for affordable housing located within Mere Brow. Planning permission is being sought on the Green Belt land. (S) Response The best way to deal with this issue is as an exception to Green Belt policy. It will need to be proved that there are no o ther sites within the built up area or in nearby settlements which can meet any demonstrable need. Recommendation No Change

Newburgh Land east of Cobbs Brow Lane Cobbs Brow Lane Surname Mackay Company Reference F/1572/201/DS2/O 1572 Objection Field to the east of Cobbs Brow Lane, Newburgh, should be released from the Green Belt and allocated for affordable housing or sheltered housing development. The land is not part of a viable farm holding. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Affordable housing could always be considered as an exception to Green Belt policy under Policy DS2.1(iv) if the need were proven and there were no suitable sites within the settlement area. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Rothwell's Mushroom Farm Cottage Lane Surname Rothwell Company Reference F/1069/202/DS2/O 1069 Objection Land at Rothwell's Mushroom Farm, Cottage Lane, Ormskirk, should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated as a mixed development site under Policy DE14. This will remove an environmental health problem. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. The mushroom farm has recently been granted planning consents which would introduce strict environmental controls. The farm is well separated from the residential area of Ormskirk by open fields. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 14 Policy DS2 Edge Hill St Helens Rd Surname Company Edge Hill College of Higher Education Reference F/1165/201/DS2/O 1165 Objection Land needs to be released from the Green Belt to enable the College to expand. The College needs to be on a single campus, and withdraws its previous objection to the land SW of St Helens Road. The College still seeks land bordered by Ruff Lane/Scarth Hill Lane/St Helens Road to be released for College development, with the most westerly land to be allocated for college use, and the most easterly land to be safeguarded for future expansion. Exceptional circumstances are justified by the need to meet educational needs and to continue and enhance the economic value of the College to the local community. If the College does not expand then it could stagnate and decline as other colleges expand in comparison. Full statement attached which suggests further data is to follow. (S) Response Whilst the Council recognises and supports the wishes of Edge Hill Col lege to have University status, there is still a clear need to provide much more evidence to provide the exceptional circumstances which would justify a change to the Green Belt boundary. Very little evidence has been produced as to why other options have been dismissed, and why a single campus is the only feasible option. A justification for the area suggested has not been provided, nor has an assessment as to the effect of such an expansion on the local housing market and key services within Ormskirk. No environmental or sustainability assessment has been undertaken of any options explored, and it is still not clear why other options have been so cursorily dismissed. Full evidence is also needed to assess the College's claims that it will decline if such an expansion does not go ahead. It is clear that there is considerable public concern about this issue which support the areas of concern expressed by the Council. The clearest evidence should be provided before any change to the Green Belt can be justified, and this evidence has not yet been received by the Council. Recommendation No Change

Land west of Holborn Hill Holborn Hill Surname Lea Company Reference F/1813/201/DS2/O 1813 Objection Land east of Holborn Hill, Ormskirk, should be removed from Green Belt to allow housing, possibly for first time buyers. The site is in a convenient location. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. There is plenty of land available in the settlement area for affordable housing development. Recommendation No Change

Land west of Holborn Hill Holborn Hill Surname Rosbotham Company Reference F/1837/201/DS2/O 1837 Objection Land to the west of Holborn Hill, Ormskirk, should be released from the Green Belt and developed for affordable housing. It is a gap between existing houses. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. Just because it is a gap in existing houses does not justify special circumstances. Recommendation No Change

Edge Hill Ruff Lane Surname RAR de Larrinaga Company Reference F/2120/201/DS2/O 2120 Objection Area of land on Ruff Lane could be used for Edge Hill College expansion. Any new building of any significance required by the College could not reasonably be accommodated within the extent of its existing site. It is essential that the space was given for the college to achieve university status. (S) Response The need for the release of Green Belt land to facilitate College expansion still needs to be fully justified. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 15 Policy DS2 Scarisbrick Former Goods Yard, Bescar Station Bescar Lane Surname Caddick Company Reference F/1592/201/DS2/O 1592 Objection The former goods yard by Bescar Station is within the settlement and is a brownfield site. Can the goods yard be used for the storage and distribution of goods? (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. In terms of existing use rights, this query will be referred to the Council's Development Control Section for a separate response. Recommendation No Change

Land at 7 Hares Lane Hares Lane Surname Lloyd Company Reference F/1863/201/DS2/O 1863 Objection The Green Belt boundary should be amended at Hares Lane, Carr Cross, Scarisbrick, to take a small triangular piece of land (which previously had a farmhouse on it, out of the Green Belt and into the Hamlet of Carr Cross to which it has always belonged. (S) Response There are no special circumstances which would justify excluding this land from the adopted Green Belt and allocating it for development. This piece of land was previously considered at the last Local Plan Inquiry and the Inspector recommended that the land be included within the Green Belt. No change is recommended. Recommendation No Change

Skelmersdale Barton House Farm/Moorside Farm Surname Higham Company Reference F/2113/201/DS2/O 2113 Objection Land at Pimbo, near to Barton House Farm, should be taken out of the Green Belt before land at Lathom. Land is being acquired by Lancashire County Council for a waste transfer station and access will be safeguarded into the Green Belt land beyond. Response The Council is not proposing the release of Green Belt land at Lathom, but is proposing the release of some land at White Moss and Pimbo. It is not felt that land at this location is the best location to consider Green Belt release at this point in time. Recommendation No Change

Land south of White Moss Rd South White Moss Road South Surname Company J. Routledge & Sons Ltd Reference F/2131/201/DS2/O 2131 Objection Land to the south of White Moss Road South (plan attached) should be allocated as employment/safeguarded land instead of that proposed by the Council. By releasing this land closest to the motorway there would be less impact on the Green Belt. (S) Response Part of the land in question is used as the sustainable drainage (SUDS) scheme for the existing business park. The remaining area of land at the front of Routledge's waste tip would therefore be cut off from the business park and would need accessing separately. This land does not, therefore, present a realistic alternative to the land proposed for release by the Council. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 16 Policy DS2 Barton House Farm Surname Geldard Company Lancashire County Council (WDA) Reference F/2323/202/DS2/O 2323 Objection The Green Belt boundary should be amended around the DE5.1.2 site at Barton House Farm to allow for an expanded site and Green Space area to border this site. This would also change the designation of the DS4 land which is considered an anomaly. Consequential adjustment should be made to the other allocations at White Moss which have been put forward by the Council. (S) Response There is no logical new Green Belt boundary to be drawn in this location. Any expansion of the employment site should be dealt with by exceptional circumstances if this can be justified. Recommendation No Change

Up Holland Hallbridge Farmhouse Dingle Road Surname Baker Company Reference F/1965/201/DS2/O 1965 Objection Part of the garden of Hallbridge Farmhouse, , is within the Green Belt. This is an anomaly, as there are no recognisable features on the ground. The boundary needs to be corrected. (S) Response It would appear that there was an error when the Green Belt boundary was drawn in this location and the boundary should be corrected as suggested by the objector to follow the curtilage of the property. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 17 Policy DS3 Policy: DS3 Safeguarded Land

Surname Iddon Company Reference F/1105/202/DS3/O 1105 Objection Affordable housing in villages -the village character should be preserved and not taken over by implementing cheap affordable housing. (S) Response Affordable housing is required in the District's villages to ensure mixed sustainable communities exist. Recommendation No Change

Banks Avenue Surname Company Redrow Homes (Lancashire) Ltd Reference F/1018/202/DS3/O 1018 Objection Planning permission has now been granted for an institutional use on the land at Greaves Hall Avenue, Banks, and therefore the allocation should be reviewed accordingly. (S) Response The Council will review the position if the permission for the institutional use is implemented. The permission was granted due to adopted local plan policy, and it is now considered to be more appropriate to safeguard the site. Recommendation No Change

Land at Greaves Hall Avenue Greaves Hall Avenue Surname Wynn Company Reference F/2123/205/DS3/O 2123 Objection There is no need for land at Greaves Hall Avenue, Banks, to be safeguarded. The land should be included within Policy DS4. (F) Response This land is appropriately safeguarded to meet future employment land needs once the Greaves Hall Business Park has been developed. The land will ensure that the Greaves Hall site as a whole is completed as a mixed development scheme. Recommendation No Change

Lathom Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Webb Company Reference F/1002/202/DS3/O 1002 Objection Objects to any development proposed for safeguarded land at Firswood Road, and recommends that the site should be re-allocated as Green Belt. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 18 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Clayton Company South Lathom Residents Association Reference F/1152/206/DS3/O 1152 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be either put in the Green Belt or included within Policy DS4. Oppose moves to have the land allocated for housing now in preference to land at Whalleys. Land is in Lathom not Skelmersdale. Area should not include existing dwellings/linear park etc. Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Wiltshire Company Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE Reference F/1181/213/DS3/O 1181 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road, Lathom, should be redesignated as Green Belt and parts allocated under Policy EN1. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. There is currently no evidence that there are any sites in this area which should be allocated under Policy EN1. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Jenkinson Company Reference F/1209/205/DS3/O 1209 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Ingrey Company Reference F/1217/203/DS3/O 1217 Objection The safeguarded land at Firswood Road is not suitable for industrial or residential use. The land should be put in the Green Belt. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 19 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname McCluskey Company Reference F/1220/206/DS3/O 1220 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Hooker Company Reference F/1222/202/DS3/O 1222 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Hayhurst Company Reference F/1223/201/DS3/O 1223 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 20 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Dagnall Company Reference F/1226/201/DS3/O 1226 Objection The area is unsuitable for residential development. The safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Higham Company Reference F/1237/203/DS3/O 1237 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Rimmer Company Reference F/1243/204/DS3/O 1243 Objection Development on the safeguarded land at Firswood Road would spoil the countryside. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Zoellner Company Reference F/1246/203/DS3/O 1246 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 21 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Swann Company Reference F/1253/202/DS3/O 1253 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Howard Company Reference F/1261/201/DS3/O 1261 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Sheward Company Reference F/1262/201/DS3/O 1262 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 22 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Burns Company Reference F/1265/206/DS3/O 1265 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Littlehales Company Reference F/1268/202/DS3/O 1268 Objection Would like safeguarded land at Firswood Road added to the Green Belt (F) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Blything Company Reference F/1269/202/DS3/O 1269 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full tex t) Page 23 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Poole Company Reference F/1275/201/DS3/O 1275 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Fletcher Company Reference F/1278/201/DS3/O 1278 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Already seen increased traffic in area. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Taylor Company Reference F/1291/204/DS3/O 1291 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 24 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Blinkhorn Company Reference F/1293/202/DS3/O 1293 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Clayton Company Reference F/1294/206/DS3/O 1294 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. The land is home to lots of wildlife This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Ashcroft Company Reference F/1301/201/DS3/O 1301 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S)

Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 25 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Mason Company Reference F/1305/202/DS3/O 1305 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Foulkes Company Reference F/1306/201/DS3/O 1306 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Harvey Company Reference F/1310/202/DS3/O 1310 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and housing is not needed for Lathom residents (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 26 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Roughley Company Reference F/1375/203/DS3/O 1375 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Woods Company Reference F/1379/202/DS3/O 1379 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S)

Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Morris Company Reference F/1381/201/DS3/O 1381 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 27 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Morris Company Reference F/1382/202/DS3/O 1382 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Hayes Company Reference F/1470/201/DS3/O 1470 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Pennington Company Reference F/1521/202/DS3/O 1521 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 28 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Killeen & Company Reference F/1531/204/DS3/O 1531 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Jones Company Reference F/1551/203/DS3/O 1551 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Taylor Company Reference F/1584/202/DS3/O 1584 Objection Object to further development on/next to Firswood Rd. Further development should take place at Pimbo (S) Response The land in question is safeguarded, and will not be developed over the plan period. The Council is proposing further industrial development at Pimbo. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Valentine Company Reference F/1665/202/DS3/O 1665 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 29 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Harris Company Reference F/1686/201/DS3/O 1686 Objection No reason to encroach further into agricultural land for housing when alternative housing sites existing (Whalleys), enough development has taken place in the Firswood Road area. (S) Response The land at Firswood Road is safeguarded and is not proposed for housing in this plan. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Banks Company Reference F/1714/203/DS3/O 1714 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Nolan Company Reference F/1765/201/DS3/O 1765 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Nolan Company Reference F/1766/202/DS3/O 1766 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 30 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Lyon Company Reference F/1788/201/DS3/O 1788 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Lyon Company Reference F/1789/201/DS3/O 1789 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Bates Company Reference F/2011/203/DS3/O 2011 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 31 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Kelly Company Reference F/2029/202/DS3/O 2029 Objection The area is unsuitable for residential development. I do not agree with the alternative proposal to replace the proposed housing development at Whalleys by development off Firswood Road, Lathom. The area should be added to the Green Belt. (S)) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Hooker Company Reference F/2129/202/DS3/O 2129 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Buckles Company Reference F/2167/201/DS3/O 2167 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 32 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Howard Company Newburgh Parish Council Reference F/2194/201/DS3/O 2194 Objection The area of land at Firswood Road, Lathom, is unsuitable for industrial development and it is not the most suitable site for residential development. The area should be added to the Green Belt (S). Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname O'Donnell Company Lathom Parish Council Reference F/2195/201/DS3/O 2195 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been des ignated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname McAllister Company Reference F/2227/201/DS3/O 2227 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 33 Policy DS3 Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Robinson Company Reference F/2319/201/DS3/O 2319 Objection Safeguarded land at Firswood Road should be added to the Green Belt - the land is not suitable for industrial use and is not the most suitable site for residential use. Site area is not correct. This land should not be brought forward before land at Whalleys. (S) Response The safeguarded land in question has been designated since 1991 to provide for the possible future development needs of Skelmersdale. Skelmersdale is located within the North West Metropolitan Area and is West Lancashire's major growth point. It is appropriate, therefore, to retain this land to provide for possible future development needs. The land is appropriately described as being on the edge of Skelmersdale and it is not felt necessary to measure the site more accurately at this point in time. The Council agrees that land at Whalleys should be brought forward before this safeguarded land. Recommendation No Change

Land at Firswood Road Firswood Road Surname Whitehead Company Reference F/2322/203/DS3/O 2322 Objection The land at Firswood Road, Lathom, is unsuitable for industrial development. (F) Response The land is not proposed for industrial development, it is safeguarded to meet future development needs. The Council has sought to allocate employment land in the Green Belt rather than bring forward this safeguarded land for such uses Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Edge Hill St Helens Rd Surname Company Edge Hill College of Higher Education Reference F/1165/202/DS3/O 1165 Objection Approximately 20 hectares of land at St Helens Road, Ormskirk, should be safeguarded by Policy DS3 for future expansion of Edge Hill College in accordance with a masterplan to be prepared. (S) Response The College have not yet demonstrated the exceptional circumstances to justify a change to the Green Belt boundary. See also response to Policy DS2. Recommendation No Change

Skelmersdale

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 34 Policy DS3 White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/203/DS3/O 1098 Objection Notes the release of Green Belt land at Whitemoss, Skelmersdale, to be safeguarded for development beyond 2016. PPS2 states that the Green Belt should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Where such alterations are proposed the Secretary of State will wish to be satisfied that the authority has considered opportunities for development within urban areas. Considers that any exceptional circumstances argued to justify releasing Green Belt land should be set out. (F) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Woods Company Knowsley MBC Reference F/1168/201/DS3/O 1168 Objection There is no need to safeguard land for beyond the Plan period, as there is adequate land allocated. This should be addressed by the next Plan. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Kimber Company Wigan MBC Reference F/1174/202/DS3/O 1174 Objection Wigan MBC considers that the proposal to safeguard land at White Moss is being put forward without full consideration required by national planning guidance for changes to the established Green Belt and without a strategic review through the RSS process. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 35 Policy DS3 Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Collins Company Ashurst and Whalleys Regeneration Reference F/1354/201/DS3/O 1354 Objection The sites at Whalleys Road should not be reserved purely for use beyond 2016 as Skelmersdale needs to expand and needs additional population. At least some of the land should be brought forward for mixed sustainable development such as educational provision as envisaged by Policy DE2. (S) Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the developm ent of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. Recommendation Change

Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Hite Company Reference F/1357/201/DS3/O 1357 Objection The sites at Whalleys Road should not be reserved purely for use beyond 2016 as Skelmersdale needs to expand and needs additional population. At least some of the land should be brought forward for mixed sustainable development such as educational provision as envisaged by Policy DE2. Low cost sustainable housing is another option. (S))

Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the development of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. Recommendation Partial Change

Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Escott Company Reference F/1358/201/DS3/O 1358 Objection Land at Whalleys should be made available for educational uses now. This should be integral to other developments planned for the area. (S) Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the development of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 36 Policy DS3 White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Walsh Company Reference F/2122/201/DS3/O 2122 Objection The release of land at White Moss from the Green Belt has not been fully justified through a strategic study as required by the RSS. Land to the west of White Moss Business Park should be allocated instead if the need is proven - plan attached. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. The alternative site suggested does not form such a logical extension to the business park and in any case is being used as the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme for the current business park. Recommendation No Change

Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Leadbetter Company Reference F/2217/201/DS3/O 2217 Objection Land safeguarded at Whalleys Road should be made available immediately for educational use. (S) Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the development of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. Recommendation Change

Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Buswell Company Buswell Machine Electronics Ltd. Reference F/2218/201/DS3/O 2218 Objection The safeguarded land at Whalleys Road should be released now for housing and educational uses. (S) Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the development of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. Recommendation Partial Change

Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Harding Company Reference F/2220/201/DS3/O 2220 Objection The land at Whalleys Road is needed now for educational uses. (S) Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the development of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 37 Policy DS3 White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Scott Company Reference F/2224/204/DS3/O 2224 Objection Development to the west of White Moss Business Park will affect the White Moss peat bog, and the model aircraft users. If development has to occur than it should be done sympathetically and contain ecological areas. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Future development will need to conform to a development brief which will require high standards of development. Development should seek to enhance the ecological potential of the land through the protection and enhancement of appropriate features. Recommendation No Change

Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Walne Company Reference F/2233/201/DS3/O 2233 Objection Whalleys site should be allowed for development now. (S) Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the development of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. Other forms of development are not thought to be justified on this land at this point in time. Recommendation Partial Change

Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Renwick Company Chartwell MSU Developments Reference F/2236/201/DS3/O 2236 Objection Reserving the development until 2016 will slow down the development of the town in an artificial way. The land needs to be released for mixed sustainable development, such as educational provision. (S) Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the development of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. There is insufficient justification for housing on this land at this point in time. Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 38 Policy DS3 Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Hite Company Reference F/2237/201/DS3/O 2237 Objection Educational use of the safeguarded land at Whalleys Road, Skelmersdale, should be permitted now. Sustainable housing is another use the land could be put to. (S) Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the development of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. There is insufficient justification for housing on this land at this point in time. Recommendation Partial Change

Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Mitchell Company Maharishi School Reference F/2239/201/DS3/O 2239 Objection The land should not be reserved to beyond 2016. There is a requirement for educational provision in the area now. There should be no delay in ensuring Skelmersdale's completion. (S) Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the development of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. Recommendation Change

Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Company English Partnerships Reference F/2240/202/DS3/O 2240 Objection Land maybe required for the proposed relocation of Beacon School, which is fundamental to the overall development of the area. (S) Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the development of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. Recommendation Change

Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Bowler Company Reference F/2241/201/DS3/O 2241 Objection The land at Whalleys Road would be ideal for the development of new educational facilities. These are essential to creating mixed development. (S) Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the development of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 39 Policy DS3 White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Heaton Company CPRE (Lancs) Reference F/2248/201/DS3/O 2248 Objection Land at White Moss should not be safeguarded for development. It is outside the Skelmersdale boundary and so development here will facilitate urban sprawl and hinder urban renaissance. Policy is too vague. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which jus tify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Read Company Reference F/2265/201/DS3/O 2265 Objection There is an opportunity to allow educational based development on safeguarded land at Whalleys Road, Skelmersdale.. (S) Response The policy will be expanded to suggest that educational and community facilities may be permitted on this land during the Plan period if they are required to serve a local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement area, that any proposals are sympathetic to the development of the wider Whalleys area, and that there would be no detrimental impact upon the plans to regenerate the Town Centre. Recommendation Change

Land at White Moss Surname Geldard Company Lancashire County Council (WDA) Reference F/2323/201/DS3/O 2323 Objection Reduction of the safeguarded area at White Moss should be made to help facilitate the removal of land from the Green Belt at Barton House Farm, Pimbo. (S) Response The land at Barton House Farm should remain in the Green Belt as there is no alternative defensible Green belt boundary- any applications seeking to encroach onto Green Belt land will need to be considered on their merits. There is, therefore, no need to amend the safeguarded area at White Moss. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 40 Policy DS4 Policy: DS4 Open Land on the Urban Fringe

Surname Johnson Company Reference F/1067/201/DS4/O 1067 Objection The second paragraph in policy DS4 to be deleted and replaced - the policy in the adopted Plan is more flexible and similar wording should be used - wording suggested. (S) Response It is considered that the wording put forward in Policy DS4 is appropriate and it gives more of an indication of the sort of scale of development which will be acceptable in the areas concerned. Recommendation No Change

Surname Skilbeck Company Tesco Stores Ltd Reference F/1071/201/DS4/O 1071 Objection Strongly object - open land on the urban fringe is not indicated on the Proposals Map key. The purpose of the Policy needs to be clarified. (S) Response Policy DS4 sites are clearly identified on the Proposals map and are shown in the key of maps where this designation exists. The purpose of the Policy is quite clear. Recommendation No Change

Surname Rusbridge Company English Nature Reference F/1085/205/DS4/O 1085 Objection The term forestry referred to in this policy is ambiguous, the Council should make clear what is meant by the term 'forestry' in the policy - does it refer to built development? More detail is needed about what if any species are intended for the more open of these areas, or whether the Council intends to recreate historic landscapes and habitats. This Policy could be amended to include the creation of habitats that contribute toward the local BAP Targets. (S)

Response Objection is same as first deposit - the policy is flexibly worded to allow a range of uses in these areas. Specific proposals, including habitat creation, could be brought forward and considered on their merits. Policy EN1 encourages habitat creation. It is considered that the term 'forestry' is clearly understood in this context. Recommendation No Change

Surname Clayton Company South Lathom Residents Association Reference F/1152/207/DS4/O 1152 Objection Changes undermine the policy and could harm strategic policies. Small scale is not defined. Looseness of terminology in the policy. Strict rules should apply (S) Response Strict definitions cannot apply as each proposal will need to be considered on its own merits in the light of the circumstances and development needs of the settlement in question. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 41 Policy DS4 Surname Dickman Company Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd Reference F/1176/202/DS4/O 1176 Objection Welcome additional paragraph, but are concerned that this policy will not deliver enough affordable housing. Market housing or other forms of development are needed to deliver affordable housing. (S) Response Allowing market housing in the villages would not be in accordance with the Structure Plan. The revisions to PPG3 suggest sites could be allocated solely for affordable housing and such development in the villages of West Lancashire will contribute towards mixed and sustainable communities. Recommendation

Surname Stewart Company Reference F/1371/201/DS4/O 1371 Objection Land south of Becconsall Lane, , should be included as part of the rural settlement defined by policy DS1.3 (S) Response This site has already been determined through the Local Plan process as being appropriately included within this policy designation. The policy allows for certain types of development on this land. Should a need for larger scale development ever arise in the village then the settlement and open land areas can be reassessed through the LDF process to determine the most sustainable option for development. Recommendation No Change

Banks Land at Guinea Hall Farm Guinea Hall Lane Surname Company Redrow Homes (Lancashire) Ltd Reference F/1018/203/DS4/O 1018 Objection Land at Guinea Hall Farm, Banks, should be safeguarded to meet future development needs. (S) Response There is no foreseeable need for any large scale future land release in this village. Should a need for development ever arise in the village then the settlement and open land areas can be reassessed through the LDF process to determine the most sustainable option for development. The policy has been amended to allow affordable housing development or small scale employment development or community facilities which would meet a local need, provided there are no available sites within the settlement area. Recommendation No Change

Land at Aveling Drive Aveling Drive Surname Draper Company Reference F/1024/206/DS4/O 1024 Objection Any development of land at Aveling Drive, Banks, should be compatible with other land uses in the vicinity, and could incorporate a pedestrian link to Schwartzmans Drive. SPG should be prepared. (S) Response Any application for development on this site would need to be assessed against all policies in the Plan, and community benefits would be sought where these requirements resulted from the development of this site. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 42 Policy DS4 Land to r/o Ralph's Wife's Ralph's Wife's Lane Surname Kenningley Company Reference F/1025/202/DS4/O 1025 Objection Still maintain objection to area of land to the rear of Ralph's Wife's Lane/Station Road, Banks. The changes do not go far enough. Mix of affordable housing, open spaces and village centre would be desirable. (S) Response The revised policy allows for affordable housing, and small scale employment and community facilities provided land is not available within the residential area. There is no need or justification to alter this policy further. Recommendation No Change

Aveling Drive Aveling Drive Surname Green Company Reference F/1099/201/DS4/O 1099 Objection Land at Aveling Drive, Banks, should specifically be allocated for affordable housing. The site is well located to shops & services and is of no landscape value. There is a need for affordable housing in Banks. (S) Response Proposals on this site for affordable housing will need to be judged against the search sequence set out in the policy - there may be better more sustainable sites closer to the village centre. Recommendation No Change

Land to r/o Ralph's Wife's Ralph's Wife's Lane Surname Lees Company Reference F/1115/201/DS4/O 1115 Objection Still maintain objection to land to the rear of property on Ralph's Wife's Lane/Station Road, Banks, - changes do not go far enough. Mix of affordable housing, open spaces and village centre would be desirable. (S) Response The revised policy allows for affordable housing, and small scale employment and community facilities provided land is not available within the residential area. There is no need or justification to alter this policy further. Recommendation No Change

Land at Aveling Drive Aveling Drive Surname Wynn Company Reference F/2123/202/DS4/O 2123 Objection Land at Aveling Drive, Banks, could provide a pedestrian link into the centre of Banks village. Land should be designated as Green Space. (S) Response The Council considers that this land is appropriately designated under Policy DS4 as open land on the urban fringe. Any future proposals could take account of the need to provide links within the village. Recommendation No Change

Land at Aveling Drive Aveling Drive Surname Warrener Company Reference F/2204/202/DS4/O 2204 Objection Development on land at Aveling Drive, Banks, would block an opportunity to link the two green spaces and sports grounds in Banks. The land should be designated as Green Space. (S) Response The Council considers that this land is appropriately designated under Policy DS4 as open land on the urban fringe. Any future proposals could take account of the need to provide links within the village. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 43 Policy DS4 Land at Aveling Drive Aveling Drive Surname Sears Company North Meols Parish Council Reference F/2232/202/DS4/O 2232 Objection The area of land at Aveling Drive, Banks, should be designated as green space (Policy EN8). It could be used to link green areas and the sports grounds together. (S) Response The Council considers that this land is appropriately designated under Policy DS4 as open land on the urban fringe. Any future proposals could take account of the need to provide links within the village. Recommendation Noted

Hesketh Bank Land west of Boundary Lane Boundary Lane Surname Ball Company James Ball and Sons Reference F/1043/201/DS4/O 1043 Objection Frontage to the west side of Boundary Lane, Hesketh Bank, has been approved for residential development however the east side remains undeveloped, it would enhance the appearance of the area if the site was developed. (S)

Response There is no foreseeable need for any large scale future land release in this village. Should a need for development ever arise in the village then the settlement and open land areas can be reassessed through the LDF process to determine the most sustainable option for development. The policy has been amended to allow affordable housing development or small scale employment development or community facilities which would meet a local need, provided there are no available sites within the settlement area. Recommendation No Change

Tarleton Land adj 14-16 Fermor Road Fermor Road Surname Iddon Company Reference F/1178/201/DS4/O 1178 Objection Land adjacent 14-16 Fermor Road is physically separated from the rest of the Policy DS4 land. It is an untidy break in the existing dwellings. There are existing drain and sewerage connections. (S) Response There is no foreseeable need for any large scale future land release in this village. Should a need for development ever arise in the village then the settlement and open land areas can be reassessed through the LDF process to determine the most sustainable option for development. The policy has been amended to allow affordable housing development or small scale employment development or community facilities which would meet a local need, provided there are no available sites within the settlement area. Recommendation No Change

Land at Carr Lane Carr Lane Surname Company Redrow Homes (Lancashire) Ltd Reference F/1365/202/DS4/O 1365 Objection Land at Carr Lane, Tarleton, should be designated as safeguarded land under Policy DS3. The site is in a sustainable location and it could address the issue of affordable housing in this area of the District. (S) Response There is no foreseeable need for any large scale future land release in this village. Should a need for development ever arise in the village then the settlement and open land areas can be reassessed through the LDF process to determine the most sustainable option for development. The policy has been amended to allow affordable housing development or small scale employment development or community facilities which would meet a local need, provided there are no available sites within the settlement area. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 44 Policy GD1 Policy: GD1 Design of Development Surname Skilbeck Company Tesco Stores Ltd Reference F/1071/202/GD1/O 1071 Objection This policy is comprised of 21 criteria that development must comply with, and therefore it is excessively lengthy, detailed and prescriptive. Tesco strongly oppose this exhaustive and unduly restrictive policy which will inevitably stifle innovation in design, and recommend that it be simplified accordingly. (F) Response Although the policy is l engthy and detailed, each of the criteria are consistent with, and required by, regional and/or national planning policies or guidance. It is simpler to include all these different criteria within a single policy than to have up to twenty separate policies. Innovative design need not be stifled by this policy. Recommendation No Change

Surname Rusbridge Company English Nature Reference F/1085/206/GD1/O 1085 Objection (4 parts to this objection) (1) Design of new developments should incorporate consideration of the benefits to biodiversity. Furthermore, point (iii) refers to 'areas of ecological value' and uses the word 'replacement'. These descriptions need to be more specific. Point (iii) should be strengthened to include reference to statutory protected sites /species /habitats listed under the local BAP. (2) It should be specified that 'replacement' should be 'like for like' and further enhanced. (3) Paras. 2-4 of the justification should be strengthened to include reference to biodiversity and local BAP, and should encourage the utilisation of advice and guidance available to protect and conserve existing ecological features of the site. Proposals for development should be required to promote sustainability principles. (4) This policy should cross refer to policy EN1. (S) Response (1) Biodiversity is covered by Policy EN1, which also refers to statutory protected sites, etc. This does not require to be repeated in this policy. See also response to English Nature's EN1 objection. (No change to GD1) (2) "Like-for-like" can be added to point (iii) of the policy, and to its justification. Change wording of criterion (iii) to encourage enhancement of areas of ecological value. (Change) (3) Biodiversity and the LBAP are referred to in Policy EN1 and do not require repeating here. (No change) (4) This policy refers to EN1 indirectly by requiring development to comply with other Plan policies in its first sentence. (No change) Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/203/GD1/O 1111 Objection The change from "Natural Area" to "Landscape Character Area" should be explained. Natural Areas are referred to in the justification - are they the same thing? LCC suggest the following rewording of justification paragraphs either 9 or 10 (section 3.5): "Where conversion or alteration to a historic building (whether listed or not) is proposed, then this should be justified in the application and an adequate level of documentation provided to allow informed decisions to be reached as to the impact of the proposals on the built structure and any buried archaeological remains (PPG15 paragraphs 2.11, 2.15, 2.18-19; PPG16 paragraphs 19-23). Where appropriate, the Council may require further information to be provided before a decision is reached or decide to apply conditions requiring a record to be made in advance of development, or other works of mitigation." (S)

Response For clarification purposes, 'landscape character areas' are another name for 'natural areas'. Change wording of justification paragraph 1 to reflect this. Insert text into paragraph 10 similar to that suggested. Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 45 Policy GD1 Surname Clayton Company Reference F/1294/201/GD1/O 1294 Objection Phrases such as "where appropriate" can be used as get-out clauses and should not be included in this policy. Support parts (x), (xv), (xvi), (xvii) of the policy, but these requirements must be enforced. Delete "where appropriate" and insert "must be incorporated" into part (v) of Policy GD1. (S) Response Change wording of part (v) of Policy GD1 such that recycling, etc. facilities will be required as part of new developments unless the applicant shows that it is inappropriate or not possible to provide them. Recommendation Change

Surname Cropper Company Reference F/1812/201/GD1/O 1812 Objection Recycling should not be optional, but compulsory, in the design of new development. (S) Response Change wording of part (v) of Policy GD1 such that recycling, etc. facilities will be required as part of new developments unless the applicant shows that it is inappropriate or not possible to provide them. Recommendation Change

Surname Ellis Company Reference F/2196/202/GD1/O 2196 Objection Objects because any proposed development should make point (v) as essential, especially since guidelines indicate greater housing density. Recycling needs to be made easy for householders, therefore designed space is essential. Recommends that wording is changed from 'appropriate' to 'essential' or 'part of the design brief'. (F) Response Change wording of part (v) of Policy GD1 such that recycling, etc. facilities will be required as part of new developments unless the applicant shows that it is inappropriate or not possible to provide them. Recommendation Change

Surname Company ARROW Reference F/2205/201/GD1/O 2205 Objection The facilities referred to in GD1 (v) should be regarded as the norm, and should be required in all cases. The word "appropriate" in the policy gives an opportunity for a get-out clause. (S) Response Change wording of part (v) of Policy GD1 such that recycling, etc. facilities will be required as part of new developments unless the applicant shows that it is inappropriate or not possible to provide them. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 46 Policy GD1 Lathom Vale Lane/Spa Lane Vale Lane / Spa Lane Surname Company NW Skelmersdale Land Owners Reference F/1180/203/GD1/O 1180 Objection The status of the land (area of landscape history of regional importance) is based upon incomplete and unsubstantiated research. (S) Also reference is made to the original objection: There is no detailed justification in the Plan for the inclusion of Vale Lane /Spa Lane within the Area of Landscape History. (S) Response The areas of landscape history were designated as the result of a study carried out on behalf of WLDC by Liverpool University ("The Landscape History of West Lancashire - Report of Survey" by Dr Alan G Crosby, August 1993). To include a justification of why each particular area of landscape history is designated as such would not be appropriate within the written statement of the Plan, nor on the proposals maps. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 47 Policy GD2 Policy: GD2 Developer Contributions to Infrastructure

Surname Hodson Company Reference F/1005/203/GD2/O 1005 Objection GD2 is to narrow in its scope. It should be in the spirit of the planning obligation tariffs (S) Response No formal guidance yet exists on the planning tariff system; the White Paper provides draft guidance on the potential of a planning tariff system. However, this should not be the basis of Local Plan Policy. Further formal guidance is expected at some point in 2005 from the OPDM. It is acknowledged that further information will be required on this subject and a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will be produced as part of a Local Development Framework. Recommendation No Change

Surname Hodson Company Northern Parishes Public Transport Focus Reference F/1006/203/GD2/O 1006 Objection Policy GD2 is to narrow in its scope and should be more in line with and in the spirit of the Planning Obligation tariffs as outlined in the Planning Green Paper. (F) Response No formal guidance yet exists on the planning tariff system; the White Paper provides draft guidance on the potential of a planning tariff system. However, this should not be the basis of Local Plan Policy. Further formal guidance is expected at some point in 2005 from the OPDM. It is acknowledged that further information will be required on this subject and a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will be produced as part of a Local Development Framework. Recommendation No Change

Surname Sears Company Tarleton Parish Council Reference F/1012/203/GD2/O 1012 Objection GD2 is too narrow in its scope and should be more in line with and in the spirit of the Planning Obligation Tariffs as outlined in the Green Planning Paper. (S) Response No formal guidance yet exists on the planning tariff system; the White Paper provides draft guidance on the potential of a planning tariff system. However, this should not be the basis of Local Plan Policy. Further formal guidance is expected at some point in 2005 from the OPDM. It is acknowledged that further information will be required on this subject and a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will be produced as part of a Local Development Framework. Recommendation No Change

Surname Ashcroft Company Tarleton Village Design (TVDG) Reference F/1013/213/GD2/O 1013 Objection GD2 is to narrow in its scope. It should be in the spirit of the planning obligation tariffs (S) Response No formal guidance yet exists on the planning tariff system; the White Paper provides draft guidance on the potential of a planning tariff system. However, this should not be the basis of Local Plan Policy. Further formal guidance is expected at some point in 2005 from the OPDM. It is acknowledged that further information will be required on this subject and a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will be produced as part of a Local Development Framework. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 48 Policy GD2 Surname Moore Company Reference F/1066/202/GD2/O 1066 Objection Policy should be more in line with Planning Obligations Tariffs as outlined in the Green Paper. (S) Response No formal guidance yet exists on the planning tariff system; the White Paper provides draft guidance on the potential of a planning tariff system. However, this should not be the basis of Local Plan Policy. Further formal guidance is expected at some point in 2005 from the OPDM. It is acknowledged that further information will be required on this subject and a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will be produced as part of a Local Development Framework. Recommendation No Change

Surname Skilbeck Company Tesco Stores Ltd Reference F/1071/203/GD2/O 1071 Objection Generally supportive of the policy, however, it is recommended the word 'All' is omitted from 'All Major Developments'. It will not always be necessary or desirable to seek contributions for every major development, and in light of this, the word 'all' is misleading. (S) Response Existing policy text of GD2 states "The contributions may be expected to cover the following where appropriate". It is considered that the policy wording provides sufficient flexibility in terms of whether a developer contribution is required or not. Recommendation No Change

Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/204/GD2/O 1098 Objection Draft Circular on Planning Obligations states, in relation to possible future reforms, that work continues for an Optional Planning Charge, on a timescale consistent with that for decisions on the Planning Gain Supplement, expected at the end of 2005. We therefore recommend that you delete the reference to a tariff, in the first paragraph of the Policy. (F)

Response Agree to remove the word tariff from the policy text. A future SPD will be developed to reflect further guidance to be given on this issue. Recommendation Change

Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/204/GD2/O 1111 Objection Although no formal guidance has been produced on planning tariff the policy should make brief reference to the new system. Environmental enhancement works should be required for all sites, not just those over 1 million pounds. (S)

Response No formal guidance yet exists on the planning tariff sys tem; the White Paper provides draft guidance on the potential of a planning tariff system. However, this should not be the basis of Local Plan Policy. Further formal guidance is expected at some point in 2005 from the OPDM. It is acknowledged that further information will be required on this subject and a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will be produced as part of a Local Development Framework.

Government Office for the North West recommends that all reference to planning tariffs be deleted in advance of future guidance to be published on the subject and the Council has agreed to remove the word tariff from the policy. Smaller scale environmental enhancements can be secured by the way of planning condition as part of any planning approval. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 49 Policy GD2 Surname Hubbard Company The National Trust Reference F/1128/203/GD2/O 1128 Objection Developers contributions to infrastructure. Paragraph 3.6-add to the end 'which are directly related to the proposed development and where the proposal accords with relevant planning policies and is acceptable in principle.' (S) Response Although the relevance of the text is recognised it is considered that it is not necessary. Planning obligations have to inherently relate to the impact of any proposed development. If a proposal is contrary to Local Plan policy the application should be refused or considered under special circumstances as a departure from Local Plan policy. In which case planning obligations may still be required. Recommendation No Change

Surname Dickman Company Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd Reference F/1176/203/GD2/O 1176 Objection The final sentence of the first paragraph should be deleted, the first sentence of the second paragraph should be deleted. Further information should be included to indicate the circumstances where contributions will not be required, explain that the level / nature of contributions will vary for individual circumstances but factors for consideration include development costs including remediation and the impact of the development in the local area. The policy should also give an indication of the types of contribution for alternative forms of development. (S) Response No formal guidance yet exists on the planning tariff system; the White Paper provides draft guidance on the potential of a planning tariff system. However, this should not be the basis of Local Plan Policy. Further formal guidance is expected at some point in 2005 from the OPDM. It is acknowledged that further information will be required on this subject and a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will be produced as part of a Local Development Framework.

It is considered that the policy reflects existing guidance produced in Circular 1/97. Any contributions asked for should relate to the development proposal and considered in light of the impacts the development will create. These issues will be fully explored within a future guidance note provided on the subject. Recommendation No Change

Surname Simpson Company Reference F/2116/213/GD2/O 2116 Objection Policy GD2 is too narrow in scope and should be more in line with the planning tariff system as outlined in the Green Paper. (S) Response No formal guidance yet exists on the planning tariff system; the White Paper provides draft guidance on the potential of a planning tariff system. However, this should not be the basis of Local Plan Policy. Further formal guidance is expected at some point in 2005 from the OPDM. It is acknowledged that further information will be required on this subject and a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will be produced as part of a Local Development Framework. Recommendation No Change

Surname Hardiker Company Tarleton High School Reference F/2219/201/GD2/O 2219 Objection Policy is too narrow and should be more in line with the Planning Tariff system as outlined in the Green Paper. (S) Response No formal guidance yet exists on the planning tariff system; the White Paper provides draft guidance on the potential of a planning tariff system. However, this should not be the basis of Local Plan Policy. Further formal guidance is expected at some point in 2005 from the OPDM. It is acknowledged that further information will be required on this subject and a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will be produced as part of a Local Development Framework. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 50 Policy GD2 Surname Ashcroft Company Reference F/2228/213/GD2/O 2228 Objection Policy GD2 is too narrow in scope and should greater reflect the planning tariff system as outlined in the Green Paper. (S) Response No formal guidance yet exists on the planning tariff system; the White Paper provides draft guidance on the potential of a planning tariff system. However, this should not be the basis of Local Plan Policy. Further formal guidance is expected at some point in 2005 from the OPDM. It is acknowledged that further information will be required on this subject and a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will be produced as part of a Local Development Framework. Recommendation No Change

Surname Thompson Company West Lancashire Primary Care Trust Reference F/2229/201/GD2/O 2229 Objection Recommends that policy GD2 contains reference for the provision of health facilities as part of new developments. (S)

Response It is agreed to include reference for the potential provision of health facilities from new residential development under criterion 2 (iv) which will state 'Health and Community Facilities.' Further detail on developer contributions will be outlined within a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which will form part of the Local Development Framework. Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 51 Policy EN1 Policy: EN1 Biodiversity Surname Rusbridge Company English Nature Reference F/1085/208/EN1/O 1085 Objection (6 objections.) (1) There is no policy for the creation of LNRs (Local Nature Reserves), allowing people access to nature. There should be a range of Statutory Local Nature Reserves (sizes and distances specified on form). (2) The wide range of issues dealt with in the policy make it confusing. The policy would be clearer if it were explained in a suite of policies relating to internationally, nationally and locally important sites, with further policies covering protected species and biodiversity. (3) The policy does not make adequate reference to the UK and Lancashire BAPs, and a commitment should be made to further the BAP targets set out within these documents. Insert wording: "The Council will support proposals which would increase the number, size and diversity of sites of nature conservation importance. In order to achieve this, development proposals should ensure that species and habitats set out in the UK and LBAPs will be protected, and where possible enhanced. The Council will protect and enhance BAP species and habitats through the use of conditions and/or planning obligations." (4) The provisions of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 should be more clearly set out within the wording of the policy. Suitable wording is recommended (see form). (5) National nature reserves should not be considered solely with SSSIs as they could be afforded European protection in addition to national protection. The policy relating to SSSIs does not refer to indirect as well as direct effects on the sites. Additional wording is recommended (see forms). (6) Where this policy refers to species, it fails to mention those listed under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. It also fails to ensure that appropriate surveys for protected species are carried out prior to determination of planning permission. Additional wording is recommended plus issues to be addressed in the supporting text. (See forms.) (S for all 6)

Response (1) Creation of LNRs is not a required function of a development plan. Rather, the plan should protect such sites that are created or that already exist. Policy EN8 encourages public access to green spaces wherever possible. One role of green spaces is as wildlife habitats, and therefore such sites could function as local nature reserves. The sizes of sites requested by English Nature are very large (up to 500ha). To designate such sites as specified would appear to be an almost impossible task. (No change) (2) National guidance recommends briefer, more concise development plan documents. The Council considers that it is simpler to include all these related policies under a single heading than to have several separate policies. The justification paragraphs run in the same order as the topics in the policy, and should be sufficiently clear. However, numbering or lettering will be added to the sections of the policy, to clarify its four topic areas. (Partial change)

(3) The suggested wording would most appropriately fit at the end of para. 4.4. (Agree to amend para. 4.4) (4) The "total protection" afforded to Ramsar, etc. sites is a more simple form of wording that covers the points in the English Nature wording. Agree to add in a sentence to this part of the Policy to clarify that it applies not only to development on/in such sites, but also to development elsewhere that might indirectly affect them. This statement will also cover the point raised in part (5) below. (Partial change) (5) While NNRs are without European protection, they can be included with SSSIs in this policy. If they also have European protection/status, other relevant parts of Policy EN1 will apply. Indirect effects on such sites will be covered by the revised wording as in (4) above. Agree to add wording re. use of planning conditions or obligations to protect or enhance sites' nature conservation interest if development is allowed. (Partial change) (6) Clarify this part of the policy by making specific mention of the relevant Acts/Regulations, i.e. Schedules 1,5, or 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act as amended and Schedules 2 and 4 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994. (Partial change) Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 52 Policy EN1 Surname Martindale Company Reference F/1120/201/EN1/O 1120 Objection Changes made to EN1 are welcomed but do not go far enough. Change para. 4.5 last sentence to read: " ... Undertake an ecological assessment to ascertain if a site is ecologically sensitive." (S) Response "Ecologically sensitive sites" refers to sites designated under EN1 on the Proposals Maps. Assessments to determine whether sites are sensitive have already been carried out. Any potential new "sensitive" sites will be investigated by an LCC ecologist. Recommendation No Change

Surname Wiltshire Company Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE Reference F/1181/210/EN1/O 1181 Objection (4 objections) (1) Locations are ill-defined; more names would be helpful. Add in names of parishes. 2) No consideration or reference has been made to the possible adverse impact of development on sites adjacent to the international /national sites mentioned in EN1. Change to: "Development will not be permitted which would, directly or indirectly, destroy or significantly impair the integrity of the wildlife corridors." 3) On the maps, the boundaries of EN1 sites are indistinct, and no identification is given of site names. Add linear boundaries to EN1 sites on the proposals maps. In the written statement, add a diagrammatic map showing the sites together with their names and status. 4) Policy EN1 is too all-embracing for ease of reading and comprehension. The policy should be broken down into numbered or lettered paragraphs identifying the nine separate issues. (S)

Response (1) The Council does not consider that there is a need to include specific parish names within Policy EN1 itself. This is a general policy applying to the whole of the District. (No change) (2) EN1 presumes against development which would adversely affect important wildlife habitats, and does not apply only to the sites themselves: it may also apply to development on adjacent sites. The Wildlife Corridor part of the policy includes the words "direct or indirect" where appropriate, and seeks to guard against all adverse effects whether they be direct or indirect. (No change) (3) The Council considers that the site boundaries are sufficiently well-defined. Adding a solid line would not allow SSSIs to be distinguished from other EN1 sites, and would not allow field, etc. boundaries to be distinguished from EN1 boundaries. A list of sites with designations and map/grid references will be added as an Appendix to the Plan. (Partial change) (4) The Council considers that it is appropriate to include the different elements of EN1 within a single policy. Numbering or lettering will be added to this policy to highlight its four broad sections. (Partial change) Recommendation Partial Change

Appley Bridge Dalton Quarry Landfill Site Lees Lane Surname Ruttle Company Surforce Ltd Reference F/1568/201/EN1/O 1568 Objection Dalton Quarry Landfill Site (part) has a current landfill licence (54012). It has no vegetation or wildlife and should not be designated as a nature conservation site. (S) Response This site, when surveyed, had plant and animal species which merited it being designated as a County Biological Heritage Site. It is therefore appropriate that it be subject to Policy EN1. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 53 Policy EN1 Aughton Prescot Road former quarry Prescot Road Surname Company Charnwick Ltd Reference F/1199/201/EN1/O 1199 Objection Land at Prescot Road, Aughton, is not a site of national or regional ecological importance but is a wooded area within an urban settlement. An ecological survey supplied supports this conclusion. Site should change designation to Policy EN8 'Green Spaces'. (S) Response The Council notes the ecological survey. The Council would wish to seek independent advice on the nature conservation value of the site, given the findings of the survey, and in the meantime to retain this site as a local nature conservation site. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 54 Policy EN2 Policy: EN2 Protection of Agricultural Land Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/205/EN2/O 1098 Objection The meaning / intention of sub-paragraph (ii) is unclear. Suggests rewording to read 'Land within the boundaries of an existing urban area unless the land is allocated for another purpose or has an environmental designation.' (S) Response Agree to amend wording as suggested, as this will improve the clarity of the Policy. The source of Map 3 will be added and should read "MAFF Land Classification Map 1969". Recommendation Change

Surname Wiltshire Company Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE Reference F/1181/207/EN2/O 1181 Objection Support policy for the protection of agricultural land, but regret the deletion of (ii), regarding making sure land is capable of being returned to agricultural production. (S) Response The policy is now in line with advice contained within PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, and therefore no changes are warranted. Recommendation No Change

Surname Richardson Company Reference F/1970/206/EN2/O 1970 Objection Generally support but would like to see Grade 3 split between 3a and 3b on Map 3. Wording of (ii) in the policy could be amended. for clarification. (S) Response The Council does not have the Grade 3a/3B split on the District wide map. The wording of (ii) will be amended to read 'Land within the boundaries of an existing urban area unless the land is allocated for another purpose or has an environmental designation.' Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 55 Policy EN3 Policy: EN3 Coastal Zone

Surname Powell Company Reference F/1912/201/EN3/O 1912 Objection Rather than going into detail about secondary sea defences, the Plan should make human safety paramount. (S) Response It is appropriate to mention and describe the role of sea defences in the policy's justification. Human safety is an important consideration behind this aspect of this policy. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 56 Policy EN4 Policy: EN4 Conservation Areas

Surname Martindale Company Reference F/1120/202/EN4/O 1120 Objection Objects to point (vi) of policy, wording should be amended to reflect the importance of greenery and spaces within and adjacent to a Conservation Area. (S) Response Agreed to amend to policy text of (vi) to read 'not permitting development which would have a detrimental impact upon trees or important green or open spaces or require the removal of trees which make a significant contribution to a Conservation Area.' Recommendation Change

Surname Hubbard Company The National Trust Reference F/1128/204/EN4/O 1128 Objection Amend policy wording (iv) to read: 'requiring all development to respect the setting of and important views into and out from, conservation areas.' (S) Response Agreed to include the recommended text. Recommendation Change

Surname Richardson Company Reference F/1970/208/EN4/O 1970 Objection Supports the policy in general but recommends that a specific policy is added to require all development adjacent to Conservation Areas to be in character with their special surroundings, particularly in terms of mass, scale and materials used. (S) Response Criterion (iv) of policy EN4 states that all development should respect the setting of important views into and out of Conservation Areas. Policy GD1 relates to general design principles of development and contains a number of criteria relating to the mass / scale of development, materials used and protection of visual amenity and historic townscapes. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 57 Policy EN5 Policy: EN5 Buildings of Historic Importance Surname Hubbard Company The National Trust Reference F/1128/205/EN5/O 1128 Objection The policy is supported but it should be made clear that all of items need a, b and c need to be satisfactorily addressed in order for a proposed development to comply with this policy. (F) Response Agree to amend crtierion (a) to include the wording 'and' at the end of the paqragraph. This should make clear that all three items need to be fully considered. Recommendation Change

Surname Richardson Company Reference F/1970/209/EN5/O 1970 Objection Recommends that the wording in point c is amended to remove the text 'economic regeneration' to include 'contributing, to both environmental improvement and economic regeneration, which together would..' (S) Response Criterion a-c of policy EN5 reflect guidance set out within PPG15. Recommendation No Change

Surname Ball Company Reference F/2235/203/EN5/O 2235 Objection Concerned that the policy no longer contains references to protected species of birds and bats as in previous policy LB1. This should be reinstated. (F) Response Policy EN1 refers to protected species and provides protection against adverse development. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 58 Policy EN6 Policy: EN6 Archaeological heritage Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/206/EN6/O 1111 Objection Recommends that additional paragraph be added to the justification relating to 'Scheduled Ancient Monuments' accompanied by a list of sites. (S) Response It is agreed to add the recommended paragraph and include a listed of 'Scheduled Ancient Monuments' as an appendix to the Local Plan. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 59 Policy EN7 Policy: EN7 Protection of Historic parks and gardens Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/207/EN7/O 1111 Objection Whilst the policy is welcomed it is recommended that first paragraph of the policy be re-drafted to include reference to all sites included in the register of parks and gardens of special historic interest compiled by English Heritage. Paragraphs 4.42 & 4.43 should be merged for clarity. (S)) Response Agree to amend the policy to include the recommended text relating to the register of parks and gardens. It is not considered necessary to merge paragraphs 4.42 & 4.43. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Wiltshire Company Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE Reference F/1181/211/EN7/O 1181 Objection Recommends the removal of the word 'hall' to read 'Scarisbrick Park' in the policy text and paragraph 4.40. (S) Response Offical listing by English Heritage recognises the area as Scarsbrick Hall and therefore EN7 should reflect this. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 60 Policy EN8 Policy: EN8 Green Spaces Surname Rusbridge Company English Nature Reference F/1085/211/EN8/O 1085 Objection No green space targets are outlined within this policy. There should be a long term aim that people living in towns should have an accessible natural green space less than 300m in a straight line from home. (S) Response The Council does not consider it appropriate to adopt the suggested target at this time. Research would be required to ascertain whether the target is appropriate for West Lancs. Such research may be undertaken as part of the preparation of a future development plan document. Policies SC1 and SC3 encourage the creation of accessible green spaces. Recommendation No Change

Surname Ball Company Reference F/2235/202/EN8/O 2235 Objection Concerned that developers will use this justification to build roads, parking and sports facilities on Green Spaces. (S) Response Any proposals for roads, parking or sports facilities would have to satisfy Policy EN8 e.g. to provide a substantial environmental gain, or an overall benefit to the local community in social, environmental and economic terms. The Council considers that in certain cases, some roads/parking/sports facilities development may be appropriate on parts of green spaces. Recommendation No Change

Rufford Church Road Green Space Church Road Surname Rothwell Company Reference F/1151/201/EN8/O 1151 Objection The designation of the land behind nos. 7 -11 Church Road, Rufford under Policy EN8 is both unnecessary and inappropriate in that the four criteria for a site being a green space are either not satisfied, or are adequately covered by other policies. The site should be included within the settlement boundary, where it would be appropriate for affordable housing, being close to public transport and local amenities, and could be developed without detriment to the character of the area. Therefore remove the "Green Space" designation, and reclassify as land within the settlement envelope. (S)

Response Policy EN8 is necessary to protect the undeveloped open character of the area. Policies EN4 and EN7 alone would not do this so well, in that their criteria relating to built development are less stringent. It is appropriate for this site to be designated under EN8 as it satisfies para. 4.44 criterion (b). A recent appeal decision supported the 'Green Space' designation of the site. The Council considers that more suitable sites for affordable housing exist elsewhere within Rufford. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 61 Policy EN8 Skelmersdale Pimbo Industrial Estate Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/206/EN8/O 1098 Objection We note that it is proposed to release from the Green Belt land at Pimbo, Skelmersdale, for use as a Green Space. PPG2, para. 2.6, states that, once the general extent of the Green Belt has been approved, it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. Where such an alteration is proposed, the Secretary of State will wish to be satisfied that the authority has considered opportunities for development within the urban areas contained by and beyond the Green Belt. In view of the fact that the essential character of the Green Belt is their permanence, we consider that any exceptional circumstances argued to justify releasing land from the Green Belt should be set out. (F) Response The open space referred to in this objection is intended to act as a buffer between the Green Belt and the proposed DE5.1.27 allocation. A demonstration of the special circumstances applying in this case should be contained in Policy DE5 or its justification, rather than in EN8. (See response to F/1098/209/DE5/O.) Recommendation No Change

Skelmersdale College Whalleys Ashurst Road Surname Company Skelmersdale College Reference F/1149/202/EN8/O 1149 Objection The designation of land should be changed from EN8 to Policy DE2. (S) Response The built-up part of the site was reallocated as a development opportunity site (DE14), where residential development may be possible as part of a mixed-use scheme. The part remaining under Policy EN8 is playing fields. The Council considers that the overall benefits of retaining this site as playing fields outweigh any potential contributions to town centre regeneration that may be obtained via the residential development of the site. Recommendation No Change

Slate Farm Slate Lane Surname Company LCC Property Group Reference F/1236/201/EN8/O 1236 Objection Land at Slate Farm, Slate Lane, Skelmersdale, is suitable for residential use, and should be allocated as a residential site (6 units: 2 from refurbishment of existing derelict farm buildings and 4 from conversion of existing stables). Policy EN8 designation is inappropriate. (S) Response This piece of land is an important buffer between the employment land to the north and the safeguarded land to the south, and is therefore considered to be an inappropriate site for residential development. Any planning applications for conversion of the existing buildings on this s ite to residential use would be considered on their merits. Recommendation No Change

Tarleton Church Road Surname Buffey Company Acland and Bracewell Surveyors Limited Reference F/1072/202/EN8/O 1072 Objection The proposed green space at Church Road, Tarleton is part of the landscaped car parking area for Tarleton village centre. It is of limited visual and amenity value and does not satisfy the criteria for designation under EN8. It is in a highly sustainable location and suitable to meet future development needs. The site should be changed from an EN8 to a DE10 designation. (S) Response The green space makes an important visual contribution to the local landscape / townscape character. Its designation under EN8 is therefore appropriate. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 62 Policy EN8 Church Road Surname Company Tarleton Estates Ltd Reference F/2221/202/EN8/O 2221 Objection The proposed green space at Church Road, Tarleton is part of the landscaped car parking area for Tarleton village centre. It is of limited visual and amenity value and does not satisfy the criteria for designation under EN8. It is in a highly sustainable location and suitable to meet future development needs. The site should be changed from an EN8 to a DE10 designation. (S) Response The green space makes an important visual contribution to the local landscape / townscape character. Its designation under EN8 is more appropriate than under DE10. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 63 Policy EN9 Policy: EN9 Protection of Trees and Woodlands

Surname Clayton Company Reference F/1294/207/EN9/O 1294 Objection The Council should be "earmarking" more areas for woodland than for industry. Add an extra paragraph to EN9 to show that the Council understands its obligation to plant new areas of woodland, as required by RPG13 Policy ER6: tree cover should be increased by 10% by 2010 and by at least 15% by 2020. Suitable sites for planting include Firswood Road and the Slate Lane area. The target should be reflected in Appendix A. (S) Response Policy ER6 of RPG13 (RSS) does not place an obligation on local authorities to plant new areas of woodland, but to work with regional partners to take every opportunity to increase the level of tree cover in the region. Paragraph 4.47 of the Local Plan conforms to this by stating that the amount of trees should be increased wherever possible. If opportunities arise to plant trees at areas such as Slate Lane, Policy EN9 encourages the taking up of s uch opportunities. The justification text for Policy GD1 (ii) refers to landscaping and buffer zones, whose creation would provide opportunities to increase tree cover. It is not considered necessary, however, to earmark specific sites in this Plan for tree planting. Recommendation No Change

Surname Hitchinson Company The Woodland Trust Reference F/1802/201/EN9/O 1802 Objection Paragraph 2 of EN9 assumes that replacement of trees or woods lost to development is an adequate compensation measure. This may be true in some cases, but not for ancient woods and ancient and veteran trees. There is little ancient woodland in the district, and it should be given absolute protection under the Plan. Suggest wording along the lines of: "Development will not be permitted where the proposal adversely affects trees and woodlands defined as ancient woodlands in English Nature's inventory of ancient woodlands." In addition, wording to identify and protect ancient and veteran trees should be introduced, for example: "Planning permission will not be granted for development which would adversely affect an ancient or veteran tree". (S) Response The Council accepts that ancient woodland is irreplacable in the short-term. The suggested amendment is too restrictive in that in some cases, veteran trees may be "dead, diseased or dying" and not worthy of absolute protection. Agree to add sentence to afford special protection to ancient woodland. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Richardson Company Reference F/1970/210/EN9/O 1970 Objection It might be helpful to add to the justification: "Where replacement planting is undertaken, it should be sufficient to enable it to be reasonably anticipated that as the new planting approaches maturity, enough tree cover will survive to at least match the tree cover removed for the purposes of the development. (F) Response The Council agrees with the thinking behind the proposed wording, but considers that inserting it into the Policy would result in too much detail. The requirements suggested are covered by the phrase, "of at least equal value". Details of the amount of planting required would be worked out during the processing of planning applications, and the drawing up of conditions or planning obligations. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 64 Policy EN10 Policy: EN10 Flood Risk Surname Turner Company Environment Agency Reference F/1089/201/EN10/O 1089 Objection The Environment Agency objected to the Deposit Replacement WLLP in 2004. Their objection to Policy EN10 regarding application of the sequential test (relating to flood risk) in preparing the Plan has not been addressed. Therefore the EA maintains its original objection on this matter. ORIGINAL OBJECTION: There is no reference to the sequential approach to flood risk given in PPG25. The Plan should indicate that the sequential test set out in para. 30 /Table 1 of PPG25 has been applied as part of the development plan process. A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment should be undertaken as part of the development plan process. This can then be used in applying the sequential approach. The Plan should also indicate clearly why allocations are made in the indicative flood plain (high risk zones) - see paras. 31 and 35 of PPG25. Changes requested: The sequential approach given in PPG25 should be applied to the allocation in the Plan, following a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, and reference should be made to this in the reasoned justification. The reasoned justification should also clearly spell out where the sequential approach has not been followed, and the reasons why not.

Response The Council has taken flood risk into account, and has not allocated any land within an area of flood risk other than at Banks, where it reflects a grant of outline planning permission and is within an existing village that has flood protection in place. Add text to justification to clarify that the Council has taken flood risk into account in allocating sites. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Powell Company Reference F/1912/202/EN10/O 1912 Objection (Most of this "objection" is actually a series of questions or comments on matters such as insurance premiums, managed retreat and human safety.) Supplementary planning guidance, including a plan showing flood plain areas should have been complete and ready for issue at the same time as the Re-Deposit Replacement WLLP. Response It was not possible to produce such a document (supplementary planning guidance) in time for the Local Plan consultation period, owing to the requirement for a Strategic Environmental Assessment on documents such as these coming into force during the time of the document's preparation. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 65 Policy EN11 Policy: EN11 Protection of Groundwater Resources Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/208/EN11/O 1111 Objection Policy EN11 only refers to protection of groundwater resources; it should also refer to surface water. Policy EN11 could also provide more clarity, stating that development should not lead to an adverse impact on groundwater and surface water in terms of quantity, quality and the ecological features that they support. This would bring the policy into line with Policy 22 of the RJLSP. (F) Response Change policy title to "Protection of water resources". Add in reference to surface water in policy, and add extra sentence to justification to provide clarification, as suggested. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 66 Policy DE1 Policy: DE1 Residential Development Surname Company Redrow Homes (Lancashire) Ltd Reference F/1018/204/DE1/O 1018 Objection Repeat of objection to Deposit Draft Plan, but updated to take account of changes. Policy is overoptimistic in terms of assessment of commitments. Greater flexibility needed in part 2 of the Policy with no justification for such tight controls. There is a need to achieve other objectives such as regeneration. Criteria 2(b) is welcomed but should apply elsewhere. Policy is too restrictive on affordable housing. Policy should be amended to provide a 20% slippage allowance and development should be allowed in villages to meet an identified local need (wording suggested). (S)

Response Monitoring will assess the rate of take-up of permissions, and sites will be brought forward if there is no longer an oversupply. Development is directed to the most sustainable locations, and the Policy conforms to the hierarchy set out in the Replacement Structure Plan. Housing allowed as part of the exceptions suggested would simply add to the housing oversupply, and allowing market housing in the villages would not be in accordance with the Structure Plan. The Policy allows for housing to meet local needs (i.e. affordable housing or special needs housing) in the villages of West Lancashire. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company Northern Trust Company Ltd Reference F/1032/202/DE1/O 1032 Objection There is no need or justification for the housing policy to be so restrictive. The text from criterion g of the policy should be deleted and the first paragraph to policy DE1.2 be amended (wording suggested). Furthermore, criterion f of policy DE1.2 needs to be amended so that market housing can be permitted where it will provide affordable housing. Objects to definition of special needs housing in paragraph 5.10. (S) Response Monitoring will assess the rate of take-up of permissions, and sites will be brought forward if there is no longer an oversupply. Development is directed to the mos t sustainable locations, and the Policy conforms to the hierarchy set out in the Replacement Structure Plan. Market housing allowed to provide affordable housing as suggested would simply add to the housing oversupply, and allowing market housing in the villages would not be in accordance with the Structure Plan. The Council is satisfied that it has satisfactorily defined housing to meet a specific local need. Recommendation No Change

Surname Skilbeck Company Tesco Stores Ltd Reference F/1071/204/DE1/O 1071 Objection There is no guarantee that all the commitments will be implemented or that completions will take place in their entirety. There could be insufficient land to meet housing needs leading to encroachment into the Green Belt. Need to revisit this policy. (S) Response Monitoring will assess the rate of take-up of permissions, and sites will be brought forward if there is no longer an oversupply. The Policy and justification sets out how land will come forward over the Plan period and there is no likelihood of Green Belt encroachment resulting from this Policy. Recommendation No Change Surname Buffey Company Acland and Bracewell Surveyors Limited Reference F/1072/204/DE1/O 1072 Objection Tarleton should be accorded the same status as Skelmersdale, Ormskirk and Burscough within the Policy to allow mixed use regeneration schemes near to the village centre. (S) Response Tarleton is not mentioned as a key service centre within Policy 4 of the Replacement Structure Plan. Due to the oversupply of housing in the short term in West Lancashire there can be no justification for allowing further market housing in Tarleton. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 67 Policy DE1 Surname Rusbridge Company English Nature Reference F/1085/215/DE1/O 1085 Objection Maintains previous objection - no provision within the policy for the protection of protected species which may be adversely affected by the re-use of agricultural buildings. Additional wording should be added to point 'f' (see form). (S)

Response As per first deposit response - Policies GD1 and EN1 would ensure that the protected species and habitats are given full consideration as part of any application. Recommendation No Change

Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/207/DE1/O 1098 Objection The housing supply shown in para 5.16 shows an oversupply of 100 dwellings. The estimated figures therefore need to be revisited and the Local Plan should set out how the Plan, Monitor Manage approach will be implemented by the Council to ensure the JLSP figures will not be exceeded. Para 5.17 needs to be amended to take account of the latest JLSP figures. Accommodation for students should be deleted from para 5.10, or it should be justified. Response The text will need to be updated to take account of the adopted version of the Replacement Structure Plan (due to be adopted soon). The Council considers that the estimates set out within the table provide the best estimate of housing completions until 2016. It is recognised that it will be necessary to monitor this closely - for example it is understood that not all permissions will translate to completions, however the Council has not attempted to estimate this at the request of GONW. The JLSP allows for certain types of exceptions to be made in any case in an oversupply situation, and these exceptions are set out in the Policy. Paras 5.8 and 5.9 of the justification set out the Plan, Monitor & Manage approach taken by the Council, although it is difficult to see how the Council could be any more stringent in its Policy. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/209/DE1/O 1111 Objection Overprovision suggested by Table in para 5.16 is not large enough to be significant. Extra wording suggested to deal with archaeological or historic interest on brownfield sites. (S) Response Although the value of the wording suggested is recognised, given the Policy does not permit the re-use for residential purposes of buildings formerly in employment use, the wording is not thought to be useful in this instance. The Council can rely on Policy EN5 or EN6 where any circumstances do arise. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company Persimmon Homes (NW) Ltd Reference F/1125/201/DE1/O 1125 Objection The policy fails to recognise the requirements of RPG13 and Policy 12 of the emerging Joint Lancashire Structure Plan regarding the need to protect Listed Buildings. The Policy should include an exception allowing housing even in situations of oversupply where this would secure the long term future of a listed building. The Policy should also require that the extra 350 dwellings in Skelmersdale should be placed on previously developed land, such as at the St. Richards Lower School site, and should allocate this site for residential development. (S) Response Listed buildings need not necessarily constitute an exception to housing oversupply in every circumstance - other types of development may be more appropriate and the need to keep any listed building needs to be weighed against the harm that this may cause to strategic objectives and whether the development needs to take place at that point in time. In terms of the St. Richards Lower School, that site has been allocated for a mix of uses for some time and is required to provide a mixed development on the former school site, which has already been largely developed for housing. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 68 Policy DE1 Surname Dickman Company Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd Reference F/1176/201/DE1/O 1176 Objection Revisions to Policy DE1 (2) partly resolve objection. Still maintain objection in terms of optimistic level of commitments with no slippage allowance and misleading in terms of there not being a ten year supply of housing. Reserving land just for affordable housing is not in accordance with Government's aim of creating mixed and sustainable communities. Policy is not consistent with Policy 5 of the Replacement Structure Plan. Development should be allowed to support rural regeneration. New wording suggested. (S) Response Monitoring will assess the rate of take-up of permissions, and sites will be brought forward if there is no longer an oversupply. Development is directed to the most sustainable locations, and the Policy conforms to the hierarchy set out in the Replacement Structure Plan. Allowing market housing in the villages would not be in accordance with the Structure Plan. The revisions to PPG3 suggest sites could be allocated solely for affordable housing and such development in the villages of West Lancashire will contribute towards mixed and sustainable communities. Recommendation No Change

Surname Iddon Company Reference F/1178/203/DE1/O 1178 Objection There is no need or justification for the housing policy to be so restrictive. The text from criterion g of the policy should be deleted and the first paragraph to policy DE1.2 be amended (wording suggested). Objects to definition of special needs housing in paragraph 5.10. (S) Response Monitoring will assess the rate of take-up of permissions, and sites will be brought forward if there is no longer an oversupply. Development is directed to the most sustainable locations, and the Policy conforms to the hierarchy set out in the Replacement Structure Plan. If the policy were not so restrictive then this would lead to an oversupply of housing land in the District. The Council is satisfied that it has satisfactorily defined housing to meet a specifi c local need. Recommendation No Change

Surname Wiltshire Company Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE Reference F/1181/214/DE1/O 1181 Objection Objects to the extra 350 houses for Skelmersdale and the exception for mixed use regeneration projects. Phased release is not explicit and should not count replacement dwellings where not in situ. Student housing should not be an exception. Para 5.19a should be deleted or amended as it could lead to housing oversupply. (S) Response Policy DE1 is in line with strategic planning policy as set out in the Replacement Lancashire Structure Plan. This sets out the need to find the extra 350 dwellings for Skelmersdale and the exception for mixed use regeneration projects. An exception can be made for student accommodation where there are shared facilities, as this does not lead to an increase in the housing figures (this will be clarified in the Policy). Replacement dwellings do not count to the housing figures. Recommendation No Change

Surname Dalton Company Reference F/1669/201/DE1/O 1669 Objection No provision in the Plan for specialist housing for local people who want to remain in their locality. Response The Policy allows for the provision of accommodation to meet the specific needs of a section of the community, such as the frail elderly or the disabled. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 69 Policy DE1 Surname Company McCarthy & Stone Reference F/1898/203/DE1/O 1898 Objection Lack of emphasis in the plan to provision for the elderly. There is a higher than average retired population in West Lancashire and the Plan should address the housing needs of the elderly. (S) Response Policy DE1 allows, as an exception to the generally restrictive policy, accommodation which meets the specific needs of a section of the community, and this is defined in the justification as including specialist provision for the frail elderly. Recommendation No Change

Surname Wilson Company Reference F/1903/201/DE1/O 1903 Objection No mention in Policy DE1 about ecologically sustainable self build projects. Response Whilst the Council would be keen to encourage such projects, it is not felt that there can be any justification for making an exception to the Policy for such schemes. Recommendation No Change

Surnam e Duffy Company Downholland Parish Plan Steering Group Reference F/2166/202/DE1/O 2166 Objection The Plan places restrictions on the developments that would provide a more dynamic community supporting the excellent school, the village hall, the shop, and put in place conditions for an ageing, stagnant community with no prospect of development. (S) Response The Plan has to work within the restrictions of Strategic Planning policy. The Policy allows for affordable housing schemes within Downholland provided the need can be proven. Recommendation No Change

Surname Ashcroft, Grice & Company Reference F/2193/201/DE1/O 2193 Objection The policy DE1 does not allow for residential development on infill sites and the requirement for residential conversion of rural buildings does not define what is regarded as inherently unsuitable for any other use. Conversions for residential use should be permitted where it can be demonstrated that a building is unsuitable for commercial re-use. (S)

Response The conversion of rural buildings for residential uses would add to the housing oversupply in West Lancashire in the least sustainable locations. Therefore tight restrictions have to be placed on residential conversions and the Council considers the policy approach to be reasonable. It would be perverse to restrict conversions in the rural villages and yet allow conversions in the open countryside/Green Belt. The development of infill sites would also add to housing oversupply over the Plan period. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 70 Policy DE1 Surname Company English Partnerships Reference F/2240/203/DE1/O 2240 Objection Supports the additional housing allocation of 350 dwellings to Skelmersdale over the period 2016. Development proposals in Skelmersdale must demonstrate that development will contribute to the wider regeneration of the town itself is supported. However it should be made clearer that the 350 extra dwellings will be provided in Skelmersdale. (S).

Response It is clear from the table in para 5.16 that the 350 dwellings will be directed to Skelmersdale and this is reinforced by Policy DE2. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company Demick (Shipping) Ltd Reference F/2266/201/DE1/O 2266 Objection Tarleton should be included within Policy DE1.2(b) to help facilitate the regeneration of sites such as Tarleton Mill. (S)

Response Tarleton is not mentioned as a key service centre within Policy 4 of the Replacement Structure Plan. Due to the oversupply of housing in the short term in West Lancashire there can be no justification for allowing further market housing in Tarleton. There is no reason why regeneration schemes should always require market housing to succeed - other funding streams should be sought - and it is important to retain employment uses within the rural villages. Recommendation No Change

Appley Bridge Surname Company Mainsprint Limited Reference F/1154/204/DE1/O 1154 Objection Appley Bridge deserves a status more appropriate to its urban form. Policy 1 of the Replacem ent Structure Plan does not preclude development in Appley Bridge. Residential development is vital to secure re-use of East Quarry site as part of a mixed use regeneration project. (S) Response Appley Bridge is not mentioned as a key service centre within Policy 4 of the Replacement Structure Plan. Due to the oversupply of housing in the short term in West Lancashire there can be no justification for allowing further market housing in Appley Bridge. The policy relating to East Quarry allows for a range of development opportunities to secure regeneration of the site.. Recommendation No Change

Barrow Nook Surname Weaver Company Reference F/1193/201/DE1/O 1193 Objection There are only 4 infill plots at Barrow Nook. Barrow Nook should be treated with a similar policy to the adopted Local Plan and low-energy homes should be included. (S) Response Allowing infill development at this location would be contrary to the settlement hierarchy and would contribute to housing oversupply in unsustainable locatio ns. The Council is sympathetic to low-energy homes being built, but this should not warrant an exception to policy. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 71 Policy DE1 Ormskirk Rothwell's Mushroom Farm Cottage Lane Surname Rothwell Company Reference F/1069/201/DE1/O 1069 Objection Policy DE1 should allow for housing in very special cases where there would be community or environmental gain. Housing as part of mixed use developments should be permitted throughout the town and no jus t in or adjacent to the centre. Wording for revisions to the policy suggested. (S) Response The Council can always consider any exceptional circumstances pertaining to an application, however, it would not be appropriate to try and identify all such circumstances within the policy. It is clear that local residents do not consider development at the Mushroom Farm to be a community or environmental gain judging by the response to the Re-Deposit Plan consultation. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 72 Policy DE2 Policy: DE2 Whalleys, Skelmersdale Skelmersdale Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Wiltshire Company Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE Reference F/1181/215/DE2/O 1181 Objection Land at Whalleys Road should be put back into the Green Belt. Wording changes suggested to Policy to ensure highest possible design for any development. (S) Response An extra 350 dwellings are required in Skelmersdale and these sites will deliver these housing numbers. These sites are already serviced and their development is important to help deliver employment and educational facilities locally and to balance the community of Skelmersdale as a whole. Recommendation No Change

Land at Whalleys Road Whalleys Road Surname Company English Partnerships Reference F/2240/204/DE2/O 2240 Objection Supports the Whalleys sites and how they are connected to the provision of new educational facilities and new employment development. Further clarity needs to be given towards sections 1, 2 & 3 of the policy to explain how the site may contribute to regeneration efforts elsewhere in the Town, how the employment land will be linked to development on these sites and finally that other community facilities, apart from educational uses, may be required. (S)

Response Agree that extra text should be added to the justification explaining how development on these sites may be linked to wider regeneration efforts and how housing development should be linked to development on the employment site. Part (ii) of the policy will be amended to refer to 'other facilities for the local community' as suggested. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 73 Policy DE3 Policy: DE3 Affordable Housing Development

Surname Hodson Company Reference F/1005/213/DE3/O 1005 Objection There are no sites to attract RSL interest. There needs to be small scale developments within Open Land areas. The provision of affordable homes would improve the sustainability of the residential settlements within the northern parishes (S) Response Policy DS4 allows affordable housing in the open land areas subject to there being no suitable sites within the residential areas. Recommendation No Change

Surname Hodson Company Northern Parishes Public Transport Focus Reference F/1006/213/DE3/O 1006 Objection There are no sites to attract RSL interest. There needs to be small scale developments within Open Land areas. The provision of affordable homes would improve the sustainability of the residential settlements within the northern parishes (S) Response Policy DS4 allows affordable housing in the open land areas subject to there being no suitable sites within the residential areas. Recommendation No Change

Surname Sears Company Tarleton Parish Council Reference F/1012/213/DE3/O 1012 Objection There are no sites to attract RSL interest. There needs to be small scale developments within Open Land areas. The provision of affordable homes would improve the sustainability of the residential settlements within the northern parishes (S) Response Policy DS4 allows affordable housing in the open land areas subject to there being no suitable sites within the residential areas. Recommendation No Change

Surname Ashcroft Company Tarleton Village Design (TVDG) Reference F/1013/202/DE3/O 1013 Objection There are no sites to attract RSL interest. There needs to be small scale developments within Open Land areas. The provision of affordable homes would improve the sustainability of the residential settlements within the northern parishes (S) Response Policy DS4 allows affordable housing in the open land areas subject to there being no suitable sites within the residential areas. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 74 Policy DE3 Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/208/DE3/O 1098 Objection Maintains objections relating to thresholds, the Plan's thresholds have no basis in current Government policy guidance. (S) Response The requirement for between 30% and 50% affordable housing in Ormskirk/Aughton and Burscough reflects the conclusions of the Housing Needs Survey Update (2003), which states that in Ormskirk and the rural areas the target could be higher than 25% due to lack of existing supply. The 10 dwelling threshold reflects emerging guidance contained within draft proposed changes to PPG3, which suggests local authorities could set lower thresholds where high levels of housing need cannot be met on larger sites alone, or where the majority of supply will come from smaller sites.. Given the fact that many sites coming forward in the future are likely to be small, and the high level of housing need, the Council considers the threshold to be appropriate. Recommendation No Change

Surname Wiltshire Company Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE Reference F/1181/216/DE3/O 1181 Objection There should be provision of affordable housing on sites of 5-10 dwellings of 20% outside of Skelmersdale due to the small size of windfall sites. (S) Response Whilst the issue is recognised, it is not felt that affordable housing would be achievable on such small sites. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company McCarthy & Stone Reference F/1898/202/DE3/O 1898 Objection There is no justification for the low thresholds set out in the policy, which goes beyond what Government guidance would permit. (S) Response The requirement for between 30% and 50% affordable housing in Ormskirk/Aughton and Burscough reflects the conclusions of the Housing Needs Survey Update (2003), which states that in Ormskirk and the rural areas the target could be higher than 25% due to lack of existing supply. The 10 dwelling threshold reflects emerging guidance contained within draft proposed changes to PPG3, which suggests local authorities could set lower thresholds w here high levels of housing need cannot be met on larger sites alone, or where the majority of supply will come from smaller sites.. Given the fact that many sites coming forward in the future are likely to be small, and the high level of housing need, the Council considers the threshold to be appropriate. Recommendation No Change

Surname Simpson Company Reference F/2116/201/DE3/O 2116 Objection SPG places heavy emphasis on RSLs. There is a chronic shortage of affordable homes in the Northern Parishes. No large sites left now - small scale developments should be allowed on the open land areas. (S) Response Policy DS4 allows affordable housing in the open land areas subject to there being no suitable sites within the residential areas. The Plan and SPG do not state that RSLs must be involved, merely that they are preferred to keep housing affordable in perpetuity. Section 106 agreements can be used in a similar way. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 75 Policy DE3 Surname Duffy Company Downholland Parish Plan Steering Group Reference F/2166/203/DE3/O 2166 Objection Affordable housing for local people will be permitted provided that certain criteria are met, requirements such as proximity to services and transport. As services are concentrated in the centres referred to in the plan as Skelmersdale, Ormskirk and Burscough, not or Downholland. Applying the criteria under the current arrangements development cannot take place. (F) Response There are sufficient services within Haskayne to allow for affordable housing development to take place. Recommendation No Change

Surname Ashcroft Company Reference F/2228/202/DE3/O 2228 Objection There are no sites to attract RSL interest. There needs to be small scale developments within Open Land areas. The provision of affordable homes would improve the sustainability of the residential settlements within the northern parishes (S) Response Policy DS4 allows affordable housing in the open land areas subject to there being no suitable sites within the residential areas. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 76 Policy DE4 Policy: DE4 Caravan Sites for Gypsies and Travelling Show People Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/210/DE4/O 1111 Objection Policy 29 of the Joint Replacement Lancashire Structure Plan should be added to the list of background documents. (F)

Response Agree to add Replacement Structure Pan Policy 29 to the list of background documents. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 77 Policy DE5 Policy: DE5 Employment Development Surname Skilbeck Company Tesco Stores Ltd Reference F/1071/205/DE5/O 1071 Objection Scope of policy must be expanded upon, reference should be made to the ability of the retail sector to generate investment, employment and activity, all of which make essential contributions to the economy, sustainable development and regeneration. Policy DE5 should recognise this. (S) Response Separate policies exist with regard to retail development and employment development. It is considered that all retail development should be consistent with policy DE10. DE5 specifically relates to sites allocated for employment purposes. Recommendation No Change

Surname Turner Company Environment Agency Reference F/1089/202/DE5/O 1089 Objection It would be useful to flag up particular constraints affecting individual sites either in the justification or as an appendix. (F) Response Issues relating to flood risk and surface run off are dealt with through Policy EN10 and GD1. Recommendation No Change

Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/211/DE5/O 1111 Objection Policy 14 of the Replacement Joint Local Structure Plan states that 145 ha of land should be provided for West Lancashire between 2001 - 2016. Although Employment Land Supply 2001 - 2016 is estimated at 144.97 para 5.32 relates to the 45ha stated in the pre-adoption version of the Replacement Joint Lancashire Structure Plan and para 5.33 states that will be met. This typographical error should be amended. The policy has the potential to impact on historical remains, particularly associated to Burscough Airfield, when such a feature exists on, or adjacent to a proposal site then some early assessment is likely to be of benefit. (S) Response Agreed to amend any typographical errors in para 5.32 and 5.33 for clarity. Protection of important historical structures at Burscough Airfield is covered within policies EN6 and EN7. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Company Persimmon Homes (NW) Ltd Reference F/1125/203/DE5/O 1125 Objection Policy should be revised to indicate that employment development is locationally sensitive, as a result sites which are in demand should be expanded and sites which have no demand re-allocated for alternative purposes. (S) Response A wide range of employment sites are allocated in the terms of the size / nature and location. The varying nature of these available sites allows a wide range of employment development to potentially take place, either aiding the regeneration of Skelmersdale or improving the stability of the rural economy. Appropriate sites should not be lost merely on the basis of short term land supply needs but consider the potential long term land use implications of the loss of allocated employment sites. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 78 Policy DE5 Surname Company McCarthy & Stone Reference F/1898/201/DE5/O 1898 Objection Policy not flexible enough and does not fully reflect national planning guidance. The policy could frustrate attempts by existing owners suitable alternative / viable use for accommodation that is clearly no longer economically viable for an employment use. It is therefore considered policy DE5 should be amended to allow for greater flexibility. (S) Response Policy DE5 allows for the conversion / re-use of employment sites within the urban / rural settlements (not allocated within the Plan) for alternative uses (such as commercial, retail and leisure uses) provided that they provide significant job creation opportunities. This allows considerable scope for the possible use of a premises for a number of purposes while resisting their loss to residential purposes. Recommendation No Change

Banks Greaves Hall Business Park Surname Company Redrow Homes (Lancashire) Ltd Reference F/1018/201/DE5/O 1018 Objection Greaves Hall Mansion and land to the rear should be re-allocated to allow housing development in recognition of previous planning approval for residential development. The employment site (DE5.1.25) and land to the south should be re-allocated to allow a mixed-use regeneration scheme on the site. (S) Response The employment site at Greaves Hall, Banks represents an important employment area within the Northern Parishes, an area which is deficient in such land allocations. The allocation needs to remain in order to provide a range of available sites for potential employment development in the Northern Parishes, to aid the rural economy. Any application for mixed use development would have to be considered through its exceptional circumstances at the time of any future application. Considering the current housing oversupply situation within West Lancashire the re-allocation of land at Greaves Hall and the associated Mansion Building, to enable development of the site for residential purposes, would be inappropriate and contrary to policy DE1 of the Local Plan and associated SPG on 'Managing Housing Supply', as well as strategic planning policy set out in Regional Spatial Strategy and the Replacement Structure Plan. The previous planning approval for the conversion of the mansion house and the enabling development probably cannot now be implemented due to the worsened condition of the Mansion House. Recommendation No Change

Burscough Tollgate Road Surname Melling Company Reference F/2216/201/DE5/O 2216 Objection Essential that planning consent on Burscough Industrial Estate is only for industries that are safe and non-toxic and not threatening to the nearby residential areas. Reclassification of the estate should prevent this. (F) Response Burscough Industrial estate is allocated for employment uses, including industrial, business and storage and distribution purposes. Any development proposed has to be considered against other policies within the Local Plan. Policy DS1 (point 6) relates to location of development and states that pollution sensitive developments such as housing, schools etc. should not be located in close proximity to uses which would potentially cause pollution. Policy GD1 relating to the design of development also contains criteria to protect residential amenity. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 79 Policy DE5 Tollgate Road Surname Marsh Company Burscough Residents Against Transfer Reference F/2234/201/DE5/O 2234 Objection Burscough industrial site should be rated as a light industry use only given the close proximity of the village. This will protect the environment, local residents and will reduce the risk of increased traffic from heavy goods vehicles. (S) Response Burscough Industrial estate is allocated for employment uses, including industrial, business and storage and distribution purposes. Any development proposed has to be considered against other policies within the Local Plan. Policy DS1 (points 6) relates to location of development and states that pollution sensitive developments such as housing, schools etc. should not be located in close proximity to uses which would potentially cause pollution. Policy GD1 relating to the design of development also contains criteria to protect residential amenity. Recommendation No Change

Downholland Surname Duffy Company Downholland Parish Plan Steering Group Reference F/2166/204/DE5/O 2166 Objection The Council specifies where employment development should be located, Downholland is not included. (S) Response Policy DE6 relates to the rural economy and can be related to employment development in the Downholland area, the policy permits re-use of existing buildings for small scale industrial, tourism and non-commercial development. The site at School Lane, Haskayne is considered as an important rural employment site under policy DE5 which will allow a number of uses to be developed on the site providing that more than half the site remains in employment use, it considered that the policy in its current form is flexible enough to encourage a wide range of development on the site. Recommendation No Change

Haskayne LO Jeffs School Lane Surname Cunliffe Company Haskayne Residents Committee Reference F/2225/201/DE5/O 2225 Objection Private housing should be allowed for on the rural employment site at School Lane, Haskayne. (S) Response Due to the current oversupply situation of market housing any proposals to allow market housing on the employment site at School Lane, Haskayne would be contrary to policy DE1 of the Local Plan and SPG on 'Managing Housing Supply'. A variety of uses are available for the site provided such uses do not take up more than half the site. Affordable housing is one such use permitted, providing it meets a local need. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 80 Policy DE5 Lathom Vale Lane/Spa Lane Vale Lane / Spa Lane Surname Company NW Skelmersdale Land Owners Reference F/1180/201/DE5/O 1180 Objection Land to the north of Spa Lane/Vale Lane should be released for development. Land at Pimbo proposed for release by the Council is likely to be developed by one company and the market for the land at White Moss (B1 only) is not good in Skelmersdale. No study was done of the Spa Lane land. (S) Response The Council have had the consultants review the land in question and the conclusion of the study is still that land at White Moss and Pimbo represents the best option for finding extra employment land. Release of Green Belt land at Vale Lane for employment purposes would impact upon residential properties, upon the Area of Landscape History Importance and the Conservation Area directly to the north. There could also be ground condition problems with this land due to former mineworking activity. It is also noted that there has been considerable support from local people for maintaining the Green Belt boundary at this location. Recommendation No Change

Extension to Stanley Firswood Road Surname Scott Company Reference F/2224/202/DE5/O 2224 Objection Any further expansion of the Stanley Estate (XL Business Park) would totally enclose Old Skelmersdale from any greenery. There would be loss of wildlife and habitat. There should be no further expansion in the Firswood Road area. (S) Response No further extensions to employment land allocations in the Firswood Road area are proposed within the Local Plan. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Hattersleys Burscough Road Surname Company Pendle Bracken Ltd Reference F/2222/201/DE5/O 2222 Objection The Hattersleys Site should be considered as a Development Opportunity Site (in accordance with existing SPG). Clarification should be made with regard to the sites policy designation. (S) Response The SPG for the Hattersleys site states that retail development is not considered an appropriate use for the site. It also states that the preferred uses would be light industrial and/or office uses to reflect the historical use of the site. The employment allocation at Hattersleys also is the only large employment allocation within the settlement area of Ormskirk and is therefore considered an important allocation. Paragraph 5.3 of the SPG states that 25% of the site would be permitted for development of retail/leisure use, but only on the condition that this small portion of retail development provided a delivery mechanism for the majority of the site to be developed for employment uses. As a result the guidance note is fully supportive of policy DE5. The policy reference to the site will remain as DE5.2.9 as section 2 of the policy relates to existing employment areas, which Hattersleys is. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 81 Policy DE5 Skelmersdale Pimbo Extension Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/209/DE5/O 1098 Objection Further justification should be provided for why land at Pimbo should be re-allocated and removed from the Green Belt. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Supplementary information will be provided through the inquiry process. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/210/DE5/O 1098 Objection Further justification should be provided for why land at White Moss should be re-allocated and removed from the Green Belt. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Supplementary information will be provided through the inquiry process. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Road Surname Leather Company Reference F/1112/201/DE5/O 1112 Objection Land currently allocated as DE5.1.3 at Pimbo Road, Skelmersdale should be re-allocated to provide a buffer zone between the industrial units at Pimbo and the residential properties on Pimbo Lane. (S) Response The allocated employment site at Pimbo Road (DE5.1.3) is considered to be a important land allocation within the settlement area of Skelmersdale. Any proposed development of the site must consider Local Plan policy, particularly GD1 which relates to the design of development. Criterion (ii) states that a landscaped buffer zones may be required to screen unsightly features from view. Criterion (xiii) states that any proposed development should retain a reasonable level of privacy and amenity for neighbouring occupiers. Any proposal that does not meet these requirements would be considered contrary to the Local Plan. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 82 Policy DE5 White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Liptrott Company Road Issues Focus Group Reference F/1117/202/DE5/O 1117 Objection There is no justification for additional land at White Moss. The proposed extension is contrary to PPG2. Existing boundaries should be maintained. WLDC have rejected numerous planning applications on the grounds of the development would detract from the openness of the greenbelt. I would ask for the proposal to be rejected. Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Broomhead Company North West Development Agency (NWDA) Reference F/1129/201/DE5/O 1129 Objection Council should provide further evidence to justify the release of Green Belt land at Pimbo. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Supplementary information will be provided through the inquiry process. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Broomhead Company North West Development Agency (NWDA) Reference F/1129/202/DE5/O 1129 Objection Council should provide further evidence of justify the release of Green Belt land at White Moss. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Supplementary information will be provided through the inquiry process. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 83 Policy DE5 Surname Clayton Company South Lathom Residents Association Reference F/1152/202/DE5/O 1152 Objection The 'Stanley Extension' should be renamed as 'XL Business Park', the Pimbo extension should be incorporated into the category of 'Pimbo Industrial Estate' and that Whitemoss Extension and Skelmersdale Town Centre regeneration to the category of 'other Skelmersdale' within the table of employment land supply. Paragraphs 5.32 & 5.33 should be amended and the targets of land in Skelmersdale earmarked for development should be reduced to reflect current labour market and avoid over reliance on building distribution centres. (S) Response For planning purposes the terms 'Stanley Extension' and 'Pimbo Extension' will remain for clarity on their location and continuity from previous documents. It is acknowledged that there is a discrepancy in the text on paragraphs 5.32 & 5.33 between the Deposit and Re-Deposit documents, although no change is proposed it should be brought to the attention of the inspector that the discrepancy exists. The Council aims to provide a range of employment sites, of various sizes, to cater for varying uses, whether B1, B2 or B8 uses. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Woods Company Knowsley MBC Reference F/1168/202/DE5/O 1168 Objection No need to allocate further employment land at White Moss. West Lancashire already have enough available employment land to deal with current demand through the plan period. The proposal to remove land from the Green Belt is contrary to National and Regional Green Belt guidance. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Trends for employment land take-up within West Lancashire have been rising over recent years, particularly in Skelmersdale. In order to provide employment land for this growing demand it is desirable to allocate further land for employment development and safeguard land for the future. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Woods Company Knowsley MBC Reference F/1168/203/DE5/O 1168 Objection No need to allocate further employment land at Pimbo. West Lancashire already have enough available employment land to deal with current demand through the plan period. The proposal to remove land from the Green Belt is contrary to National and Regional Green Belt guidance. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which woul d be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Trends for employment land take-up within West Lancashire have been rising over recent years, particularly in Skelmersdale. In order to provide employment land for this growing demand it is desirable to allocate further land for employment development and safeguard land for the future. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 84 Policy DE5 White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Kimber Company Wigan MBC Reference F/1174/201/DE5/O 1174 Objection The proposal to amend the Green Belt at White Moss Business Park is being put forward without the full consideration required by national planning guidance for changes to the established Green Belt. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land a t White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Wiltshire Company Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE Reference F/1181/212/DE5/O 1181 Objection Strongly object to the loss of Green Belt land and highly versatile agricultural land at Pimbo for development purposes. No justification is provided for why this is necessary. Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

Moss Street Garage Liverpool Road Surname Whittle Company Reference F/1197/201/DE5/O 1197 Objection Redesignate part of the DE5 land at Liverpool Road, Skelmersdale from DE5.2.8 to within the settlement area. (S) Response The proposed site provides an important frontage for the site onto Liverpool Road. Removal for residential purposes will remove an important opportunity to provide employment as well as placing houses close to industry. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Anderson Company Reference F/1456/201/DE5/O 1456 Objection No comment made. Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full tex t) Page 85 Policy DE5 White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Anderson Company Reference F/1456/202/DE5/O 1456 Objection Objects to employment allocations at White Moss. (F) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Guest Company Reference F/1458/201/DE5/O 1458 Objection Objects to the employment allocation at Pimbo. (F) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Guest Company Reference F/1458/202/DE5/O 1458 Objection Objects to the employment allocation at White Moss. (F) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of somesafeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Hewitt Company Reference F/1761/201/DE5/O 1761 Objection I am objecting to this parcel of land at Pimbo being removed from the Green Belt, when there is so much empty space available within the industrial areas of Skelmersdale that should be used up first and if we keep using up the Green Belt land at some point in the future we will have none left. (F) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 86 Policy DE5 Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Hewitt Company Reference F/1779/201/DE5/O 1779 Objection Object strongly to land at Pimbo being removed from the Green Belt as there is more than enough unused land available in existing industrial areas. We must stop using our rural land like this and protect areas such as Holland Moss for the future. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Hewitt Company Reference F/1779/202/DE5/O 1779 Objection Object to the land at White Moss Business Park being removed from Green Belt as we must stop using up our rural land as we will ultimately have none left and communities such as Whitemoss / Holland Moss will cease to exist. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land a t White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Hesketh Company Reference F/1853/201/DE5/O 1853 Objection The proposal for the extension to Pimbo as it stands would result in no means of access to the small field shown on attached plan. Proposed that this should be included within the whole proposal site. We do not support in principle the Council's allocations of further employment land in Pimbo, as we do not believe good arable land needs to be taken. However, should the proposal be accepted it should only proceed on the basis proposed above. (S) Response It is agreed to amend the site area at the extension to Pimbo (DE5.1.27) to incorporate the small field to the South, as it is recognised that after the future development of this site no feasible access will exist. The extra land at this site will act more as a buffer zone to the Green Belt to the South although the employment allocation at DE5.2.27 may be increased slightly at the Southern boundary. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 87 Policy DE5 White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Liptrott Company Reference F/1900/201/DE5/O 1900 Objection Existing land designated for the White Moss Business Park has not been developed, there is no pressure for more land, therefore no justification for moving the Green Belt boundary. Proposed development is contrary to PPG2. Many other similar proposals have been rejected by the Council on the grounds that they would detract from the openness of the Green Belt, this should be rejected on the same grounds. The land here has been designated for the past 20 years and the latest proposal merely wishes to remove the land from Green Belt, not designate its use. Therefore it is not needed. The existing Green Belt boundary should be maintained, possibly the Council can monitor demand and if, sometime in the future, the business park becomes fully occupied, this could be brought forward. Th ere is no need to do it now. (S)

Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname McGurk Company Reference F/1909/201/DE5/O 1909 Objection Objects to the allocation of further land at Pimbo, no further employment development should be developed here and more emphasis should be placed on the regeneration of the town centre to provide further jobs for the town. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Aspinwall Company Reference F/1955/201/DE5/O 1955 Objection Further development at Pimbo within the rural area is unnecessary. The industrial site would blot the natural landscape and would have serious implications for the natural surrounding environment. The proposal would destroy our rural way of life completely. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which woul d be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 88 Policy DE5 White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Aspinwall Company Reference F/1955/202/DE5/O 1955 Objection Further development at White Moss within the rural area is unnecessary. The employment land site would blot the natural landscape and would have serious implications for the natural surrounding environment. The proposal would destroy our rural way of life completely. Developments should not encroach on the Green Belt (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Willingale Company Reference F/1956/201/DE5/O 1956 Objection Further industrial development at Pimbo is an intrusion onto the rural area especially encroachment on the Green Belt. It would blot the landscape and the rural way of life would be lost within Skelmersdale. There are few rural settings left they should be left for future generations. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report dem onstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Willingale Company Reference F/1956/202/DE5/O 1956 Objection Further development at White Moss within this rural area is an intrusion upon the rural setting of the area. The employment land site would destroy the natural habitat of great ecological value within the area. Development should not encroach upon the Green Belt. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 89 Pol icy DE5 Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Aspinwall-Livesey Company Reference F/1960/202/DE5/O 1960 Objection Further development at Pimbo within the rural area is unnecessary. The employment land site would blot the natural landscape and would have serious implications for the natural surrounding environment. The proposal would destroy our rural way of life completely. Developments should not encroach on the Green Belt (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Aspinwall-Livesey Company Reference F/1960/201/DE5/O 1960 Objection Further development at White Moss within the rural area of is unnecessary. The industrial site would blot the natural landscape and would have serious implications for the natural surrounding environment. The proposal would destroy our rural way of life completely. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Raine Company Reference F/1962/201/DE5/O 1962 Objection There are large areas of available land in this area, there is no need to for the further erosion of Green Belt land at Pimbo. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 90 Policy DE5 T.P.T Site Railway Road Surname Company Hills Developments Reference F/2121/201/DE5/O 2121 Objection It is inappropriate to locate a site for industrial use in the middle of a residential area, recommends that the TPT Site site at Railway Road, Skelmersdale is reallocated into the settlement area of Skelmersdale. (S) Response It is considered the site at Railway Road represents an important allocation for employment development, particularly light industrial or business / office use and should be retained as such. Further residential development which, in the current housing oversupply situation would be undesirable. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Walsh Company Reference F/2122/202/DE5/O 2122 Objection Recommends the reallocation of safeguarded land (DS3.5) at White Moss to Green Belt (DS2). And the reallocation of employment land DE5.2.28 at White Moss to safeguarded land. Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. The alternative site suggested does not form such a logical extension to the business park and in any case is being used as the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme for the current business park. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Blackburn Company Reference F/2128/202/DE5/O 2128 Objection The established rural settlement of 'Holland Moss' will be sandwiched between the proposed extensions to White Moss and Pimbo. As a result the proposals will have a negative impact on the residential amenity and rural character of the area. If the proposals are to go ahead, then there should be some relaxation of planning permissions at Holland Moss, allowing limited infill at this location. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provi de a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 91 Policy DE5 Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Blackburn Company Reference F/2128/201/DE5/O 2128 Objection The northern boundary of the proposal site at Pimbo is aligned facing established residential properties, does the lack of a protective buffer zone indicate a further possible incursion into the Green Belt to the North? The established settlement of Holland Moss will be sandwiched between the two extensions, the result will have a negative impact, both environmentally and to the future value of properties in the area. If the proposals are to go ahead, then there should be some relaxation of planning permissions at Holland Moss, allowing limited infill at this location. (S)

Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. A landscape buffer has been provided to the South in order to provide sufficient distance between the proposed employment development and the protect area of Holland Moss which is a Biological Heritage Site. The buffer is also provided to the West to protect the residential amenity of Moss Side Farm, which is directly adjacent to the proposal site. A buffer is not considered as necessary to the North on the boundary of Nipe Lane. Any future development will be judged against policy GD1 which relates to the design of development and includes criteria regarding the protection of residential / visual amenity of the surrounding area. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Railton Company Reference F/2172/202/DE5/O 2172 Objection The employment land development at White Moss would ruin rural communities. There are existing available units within Skelmersdale. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Railton Company Reference F/2172/201/DE5/O 2172 Objection The employment land development at Pimbo would ruin rural communities. There are existing available units within Skelmersdale. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 92 Policy DE5 White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Scott Company Reference F/2224/203/DE5/O 2224 Objection There should be no development close to existing peat beds at White Moss. The area is unspoilt and home to a large variety of wildlife. Any development must be justified, necessary to Skelmersdale employment needs and if developed should include sympathetic landscaping to mitigate its impact. (S) Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Future development will need to conform to a development brief which will require high standards of development. Development should seek to enhance the ecological potential of the land through th e preservation and enhancement of appropriate features. Recommendation No Change

Cobbs Clough / Whalleys Surname Scott Company Reference F/2224/205/DE5/O 2224 Objection Objects to the employment allocations at Cobbs Clough, the visual impact of any proposed development will destroy the visual amenity of the whole valley, to the detriment of residential amenity. The area at Cobbs Clough should remain green. (S) Response The employment allocation at Cobbs Clough is currently within the adopted Local Plan and a development brief has been prepared for the site. This sets out design principles for the future development of the site, that development should reflect the surrounding character of the area and should include a bridleway between the Tawd Valley and Beacon Country Park. No further extensions to Stanley are proposed within the Local Plan. Recommendation No Change

White Moss Business Park (extension) Moss Lane Surname Heaton Company CPRE (Lancs) Reference F/2248/202/DE5/O 2248 Objection Objects to land at White Moss being removed from the Green Belt for employment purposes. Recommends alternative sites be found in urban areas. Response The Council commissioned a report to examine all options for providing the further employment land required by Replacement Structure Plan Policy 14. This report demonstrated that there were no other feasible options within the built up area or on land safeguarded to meet future needs, which would be suitable. The Council therefore considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of the Green Belt and that Pimbo and White Moss are the best locations. The provision of some safeguarded land at White Moss will help to provide a long term defensible Green Belt boundary. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 93 Policy DE5 Pimbo Road Pimbo Road Surname Geldard Company Lancashire County Council (WDA) Reference F/2323/204/DE5/O 2323 Objection Requests that the existing employment allocation at Barton House Farm (DE5.1.2) s hould be expanded to a similar size as that at the Pimbo extension in order to allow future development. (S) Response Any expansion into the Green Belt to the West of the existing employment allocation, as highlighted on the attached plan would leave no defensible Green Belt Boundary. As a result further expansion in this area would not be considered acceptable. Recommendation No Change

Pimbo Extension Pimbo Road Surname Geldard Company Lancashire County Council (WDA) Reference F/2323/203/DE5/O 2323 Objection The size of land allocated at Pimbo (DE5.1.27) should be reduced in order for expansion of employment land at Barton House Farm (DE5.1.2). (S) Response The land at Barton House Farm should remain in the Green Belt as there is no alternative defensible Green belt boundary- any applications wishing to encroach onto Green Belt land will need to be considered on their merits. Whereas the DE5.1.27 site does offer a more appropriate boundary between the built development and Green Belt in the form of an existing track. Recommendation No Change

Tarleton Tarleton Mill Plox Brow Surname Company Demick (Shipping) Ltd Reference F/2266/204/DE5/O 2266 Objection Recommends that mixed use development, including housing, employment, recreation and education uses, are allowed at Tarleton Mill. Or that the site be re-allocated as a development opportunity site under policy DE14 of the Local Plan. (S)

Response Tarleton Mill represents a important site for employment development in the Northern Parishes. In an area which is deficient in employment land opportunities this site should be retained for such a purpose. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 94 Policy DE6 Policy: DE6 The Rural Economy Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/212/DE6/O 1111 Objection Recommends additional text be added to paragraph 5.39 to read '..rural diversification proposal, including its impact on the historic environment landscape and wildlife resources.' (S) Response It is agreed to include extra wording in paragraph 5.39. Recommendation Change

Surname Company Harrison Leisure UK Ltd Reference F/2191/201/DE6/O 2191 Objection An additional paragraph should be added under the list of 6 criteria to allow for more significant alterations to buildings to enable existing businesses to operate efficiently and improve the overall appearance of the building. (S) Response Policy DE6 allows for minor extensions to existing buildings or for the development of small new buildings. No development should be permitted which would have a greater impact on the surrounding Green Belt, contrary to national, regional and local planning guidance. Recommendation No Change

Mere Brow Leisure Lakes Surname Bracewell Company Leisure Lakes Reference F/1070/203/DE6/O 1070 Objection The policy does not go sufficiently far to promote rural diversification and enterprise. (S) Response Policy DE15 sets out criteria for improving facilities at existing tourist destinations and is relevant to the development of the site at Leisure Lakes. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 95 Policy DE7 Policy: DE7 Agricultural Produce Packing Facilities

Surname Hodson Company Reference F/1005/210/DE7/O 1005 Objection How is the Council going to ensure that produce is locally grown? What is definition of Local? Can a clear definition of majority be included in the plan. Policy should be consistent with LCC Highways Strategy. (S) Response The Council would place a condition on any permission to restrict the produce to that locally grown, and will apply appropriate resources to monitor such conditions. A definition of 'majority' will be included within the justification. This will define that 50% of the produce should be grown on the holding itself, 30% from the locality and 20% could be imported from outside the area. This is roughly in line with the proportions imported at the present time at the large produce packing facilities in the Northern Parishes area. Paragraph v of the policy clearly ensures that traffic can be properly accommodated and that there is no detriment to highway safety. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Hodson Company Northern Parishes Public Transport Focus Reference F/1006/210/DE7/O 1006 Objection Paragraph v. should be consistent with LCC Highways Strategy with regard to the effect on the amenity of the residents of the villages in the Northern Parishes. How is the council going to ensure that produce is locally grown? What definition is Local? Can a clear definition of majority be included in the Plan (F). Response The Council would place a condition on any permission to restrict the produce to that locally grown, and will apply appropriate resources to monitor such conditions. A definition of 'majority' will be included within the justification. This will define that 50% of the produce should be grown on the holding itself, 30% from the locality and 20% could be imported from outside the area. This is roughly in line with the proportions imported at the present time at the large produce packing facilities in the Northern Parishes area. Paragraph v of the policy clearly ensures that traffic can be properly accommodated and that there is no detriment to highway safety. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Sears Company Tarleton Parish Council Reference F/1012/210/DE7/O 1012 Objection How is the council going to ensure that produce is locally grown? What is definition of Local? Can a clear definition of majority be included in the plan. Response The Council would place a condition on any permission to restrict the produce to that locally grown, and will apply appropriate resources to monitor such conditions. A definition of 'majority' will be included within the justification. This will define that 50% of the produce should be grown on the holding itself, 30% from the locality and 20% could be imported from outside the area. This is roughly in line with the proportions imported at the present time at the large produce packing facilities in the Northern Parishes area. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Ashcroft Company Tarleton Village Design (TVDG) Reference F/1013/205/DE7/O 1013 Objection How is the council going to ensure that produce is locally grown? What is definition of Local? Can a clear definition of majority be included in the plan. (F) Response The Council would place a condition on any permission to restrict the produce to that locally grown, and will apply appropriate resources to monitor such conditions. A definition of 'majority' will be included within the justification. This will define that 50% of the produce should be grown on the holding itself, 30% from the locality and 20% could be imported from outside the area. This is roughly in line with the proportions imported at the present time at the large produce packing facilities in the Northern Parishes area. Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 96 Policy DE7 Surname Moore Company Reference F/1066/203/DE7/O 1066 Objection How is the Council going to ensure that more produce will be locally grown. Definition of 'majority' needs to be better clarified in the policy. (S) Response The Council would place a condition on any permission to restrict the produce to that locally grown, and will apply appropriate resources to monitor such conditions. A definition of 'majority' will be included within the justification. This will define that 50% of the produce should be grown on the holding itself, 30% from the locality and 20% could be imported from outside the area. This is roughly in line with the proportions imported at the present time at the large produce packing facilities in the Northern Parishes area. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Simpson Company Reference F/2116/204/DE7/O 2116 Objection Supports DE7(v), but would like to know how the Council is going to ensure that produce will be grown locally and wants definition of 'majority' in the Plan. (F) Response The Council would place a condition on any permission to restrict the produce to that locally grown, and will apply appropriate resources to monitor such conditions. A definition of 'majority' will be included within the justification. This will define that 50% of the produce should be grown on the holding itself, 30% from the locality and 20% could be imported from outside the area. This is roughly in line with the proportions imported at the present time at the large produce packing facilities in the Northern Parishes area. Recommendation Change

Surname Ashcroft Company Reference F/2228/205/DE7/O 2228 Objection Supports DE7(v), but would like to know how the Council is going to ensure that produce will be grown locally and wants definition of 'majority' in the Plan. (F) Response The Council would place a condition on any permission to restrict the produce to that locally grown, and will apply appropriate resources to monitor such conditions. A definition of 'majority' will be included within the justification. This will define that 50% of the produce should be grown on the holding itself, 30% from the locality and 20% could be imported from outside the area. This is roughly in line with the proportions imported at the present time at the large produce packing facilities in the Northern Parishes area. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Dunn Company Reference F/2271/201/DE7/O 2271 Objection Inappropriate use of the Green Belt for such a facility, Brownfield sites would be more appropriate. (F) Response The policy seeks to put such uses on employment areas, but recognises that where local produce is to be packed sometimes such development is best located close to, or on, the farm holding, especially where this is small scale in nature. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 97 Policy DE8 Policy: DE8 Accommodation for Seasonal Agricultural/Horticultural

Surname Johnson Company Reference F/1067/202/DE8/O 1067 Objection The Policy appears to only allow accommodation on the agricultural land holding and is too restrictive in not allowing caravans. The policy DE8 needs to be amended by the deletion of criterion (iv) and by the addition of text to explain a sequential search starting with non-green belt sites (S) Response The policy does not allow development in the Green Belt. The Supplementary Planning Guidance sets out the sequential search required and explains that development in the Green Belt will only be allowed in very special circumstances. Recommendation No Change

Surname Wiltshire Company Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE Reference F/1181/217/DE8/O 1181 Objection Object to removal of paragraph (vii) of original policy as it removes the statement that any temporary accommodation will be removed when not in use. Suggest that any permissions should require renewal every 5 years as seasonal accommodation should not be permanent. If it is permanent then it is affordable housing covered by Policy DE3.(S)

Response A time limited permission for the temporary use of caravans for a maximum of 3 years is included in the policy. It would be unreasonable to require the removal of semi-permanent buildings after five years. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company Gore Hill Farm Reference F/1967/202/DE8/O 1967 Objection It is unreasonable for the policy to specify the form of accommodation that is acceptable as it will only be allowed in the Green Belt in very special circumstances. The appeal decision at Gore Hall Farm accepted caravans as being appropriate. Suggests amended wording. Response The appeal referred to only allowed caravans for a temporary period of three years to enable the Council to address the issue via the development plan process. The Inspector stated that the acceptability of caravans as a long term solution must remain in doubt. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company Flavourfresh Salads Reference F/1968/201/DE8/O 1968 Objection It is unreasonable for the policy to specify the form of accommodation that is acceptable as it will only be allowed in the Green Belt in very special circumstances. The appeal decision at Gore Hall Farm accepted caravans as being appropriate. Suggests amended wording. Response The appeal referred to only allowed caravans for a temporary period of three years to enable the Council to address the issue via the development plan process. The Inspector stated that the acceptability of caravans as a long term solution must remain in doubt. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 98 Policy DE8 Surname Edge Company Riccadonna Produce Reference F/2189/201/DE8/O 2189 Objection The heading of Policy DE8 should read as: Accommodation for Temporary Agricultural/Horticultural Workers . Furthermore, the first paragraph of Policy DE8 should be amended to make it more flexible (S). Response It is not accepted that the policy needs to cover permanent accommodation for temporary workers. The policy needs to be clear in order to provide certainty. Further design guidance will be incorporated into the Supplementary Planning Guidance Recommendation No Change

Surname Baybutt Company A. Baybutt & Sons Reference F/2242/201/DE8/O 2242 Objection The policy is too restrictive. Propose that policy allows caravans and that the time limit on caravans be deleted. Response As explained in the SPG caravans are felt to be more harmful to the openness of Green Belt and the visual quality of the countryside. The time limit for caravans will allow employers to identify more appropriate accommodation. Recommendation No Change

Surname Baybutt Company Olive Grove Salads Reference F/2243/201/DE8/O 2243 Objection The policy is too restrictive. Propose that policy allows caravans and that the time limit on caravans be deleted. Response As explained in the SPG caravans are felt to be more harmful to the openness of Green Belt and the visual quality of the countryside. The time limit for caravans will allow employers to identify more appropriate accommodation. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 99 Policy DE9 Policy: DE9 Removal of Agricultural Workers Dwelling Conditions Surname Buffey Company Acland and Bracewell Surveyors Limited Reference F/1072/205/DE9/O 1072 Objection It should be possible for owners to choose whether to offer the properties on the market for sale or rent. Word 'and' should be amended to 'or' in para (ii) of the policy. (S) Response The Council needs to be satisfied that all avenues have been explored before the removal of a condition. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 100 Policy DE10 Policy: DE10 Retail and Other Town Centre Development Surname Skilbeck Company Tesco Stores Ltd Reference F/1071/206/DE10/O 1071 Objection Tesco support the amendment of the policy to ensure greater conformity with PPG6 and the sequential test. However, the Council has still not sufficiently clarified and reworded 2ii and 4i to make specific and consistent reference to the sequential test. (F) Response Policy DE10 parts 1-4 constitutes the sequential test. The Council does not consider it necessary to state within the Policy itself that this is "the sequential test". Recommendation No Change

Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/211/DE10/O 1098 Objection Additional criterion should be added to paragraph 4 regarding the development on out-of-centre sites, requiring such sites to be accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport. (F) Response Add in additional criterion as recommended. Recommendation Change

Tarleton Church Road Surname Buffey Company Acland and Bracewell Surveyors Limited Reference F/1072/201/DE10/O 1072 Objection DE10 seeks to introduce a hierarchy of centres and sequential test, which fails to recognise the importance of centres such as Tarleton in providing much -needed local retail facilities. This policy is at odds with PPG6 para. 3.18 which advises LAs to encourage a wide range of facilities in local centres, to provide for the day-to-day needs of the local population, hence reducing the need to travel. PPG6 para 3.20 identifies the economic and social role that village shops play in maintaining villages as and viable communities. Additional retail and complementary development should be permitted within the defined Tarleton district centre boundary in order to support its vitality and viability. Currently DE10 would require that sites in Skelmersdale /Ormskirk and Burscough be examined first before considering Tarleton - an unnecessary and unjustified restriction. (S)

Response DE10 is consistent with national guidance in terms of the hierarchy of shopping areas, and the sequential test. Paras. 5.51 and 5.53 recognise the important role of local and district centres and allow for further appropriate development in such areas. The policy should be subject to a minor change to remove the requirement - part 3, criterion (i) - for the sequential test to be applied to small-scale development designed for a local catchment area. Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 101 Policy DE10 Church Road Surname Company Tarleton Estates Ltd Reference F/2221/201/DE10/O 2221 Objection DE10 seeks to introduce a hierarchy of centres and sequential test, which fails to recognise the importance of centres such as Tarleton in providing much -needed local retail facilities. This policy is at odds with PPG6 para. 3.18 which advises LAs to encourage a wide range of facilities in local centres, to provide for the day-to-day needs of the local population, hence reducing the need to travel. PPG6 para 3.20 identifies the economic and social role that village shops play in maintaining villages as and viable communities. Additional retail a nd complementary development should be permitted within the defined Tarleton district centre boundary in order to support its vitality and viability. Currently DE10 would require that sites in Skelmersdale /Ormskirk and Burscough be examined first before considering Tarleton - an unnecessary and unjustified restriction. (S)

Response DE10 is consistent with national guidance in terms of the hierarchy of shopping areas, and the sequential test. Paras. 5.51 and 5.53 recognise the important role of local and district centres and allow for further appropriate development in such areas. The policy should be subject to a minor change to remove the requirement (part 3) for the sequential test to be applied to small-scale development designed for a local catchment area. Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 102 Policy DE11 Policy: DE11 Skelmersdale Town Centre Skelmersdale Skelmersdale Town Centre Surname Company Asda Stores Ltd Reference F/1015/201/DE11/O 1015 Objection ASDA asks that it be involved in any master-planning /consultation exercise that is conducted for the town centre. (S) Response ASDA will be consulted /have the opportunity to be involved in the masterplanning process for Skelmersdale town centre redevelopment. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to include text to this effect in the Plan. Recommendation No Change

Skelmersdale Town Centre Surname Skilbeck Company Tesco Stores Ltd Reference F/1071/207/DE11/O 1071 Objection Tesco encourage the comprehensive redevelopment of Skelmersdale Town Centre as part of Policy DE11. However, convenience retail should be included as one of the range of uses that is encouraged. The Plan must acknowledge the invaluable contribution that such retail can make in terms of investment and employment creation. Retail development, and particularly supermarkets of varying formats, can serve to anchor and secure the vitality and viability of new and existing shopping centres with resultant knock-on benefits for the wider community, as well as being a catalyst for widespread regeneration and renewal. The opportunity for further retail development opportunities elsewhere in the town should also be encouraged. This will not only serve to generate future growth, but will also support and consolidate existing retail provision, and allow local people to meet their needs. Policy DE11 must be modified to acknowledge this. Minor changes have not sufficiently done this. (F)

Response A retail study of Skelmersdale carried out by Chestertons in 2002 demonstrated that there was extra capacity for a small amount of convenience retailing in the Town Centre. The Council do not consider that there is scope for further large scale food/convenience retailing at the Town Centre, but there could be scope for some small scale facilities. Amend the Policy to state that further convenience retailing may be permissible provided it is accepted through the masterplanning process and that it does not have a harmful effect upon the vitality and viability of the existing centre or nearby centres. Further appropriate retail development elsewhere within Skelmersdale is addressed by other policies. Recommendation Partial Change

Skelmersdale Town Centre Surname Cheetham Company Reference F/1795/202/DE11/O 1795 Objection The proposed extension of the area for Skelmersdale town centre redevelopment is too great. Recommends removing certain areas of green/natural space from the redevelopment area. (S) Response Add to criterion (viii) of Policy DE11: "... protect important or valuable open /green space where appropriate". Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 103 Policy DE11 Skelmersdale Town Centre Surname Company English Partnerships Reference F/2240/205/DE11/O 2240 Objection English Partnerships support the regeneration of Skelmersdale. A further change should be made which would be the addition to the Policy of the criterion: "contribute to the evening and night-time economy". (S) Response Add in extra criterion: "contribute to the evening economy". The Council considers it unnecessary to include "night-time" within this criterion, firstly for consistency with PPG6, and secondly as "night-time economy" may be included within the more general phrase, "evening economy". Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 104 Policy DE12 Policy: DE12 Ormskirk Town Centre Ormskirk Ormskirk Town Centre Surname Skilbeck Company Tesco Stores Ltd Reference F/1071/208/DE12/O 1071 Objection This policy is far too detailed and a number of the design points are already covered by GD1. The policy should therefore be simplified to avoid repetition. (F) Response It is accepted that some of the criteria in DE12 are also covered by Policy GD1. Other criteria relate specifically to the unique characteristics of Ormskirk town centre, and are therefore necessary in this policy. Overall, the Council considers it is reasonable to include all of the current criteria of relevance to Ormskirk town centre within Policy DE12 for simplicity, despite the element of overlap with GD1. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Town Centre Surname Martindale Company Reference F/1120/203/DE12/O 1120 Objection Original objections stand. Re. para 5.56: recent developments in Ormskirk Town Centre have not been of sufficient quality, nor have they respected the special architectural or historic character of the town. There is nothing in the policy to improve this. Re. para 5.57: There is no justification for the first sentence given recent development. There are 5 objections /suggestions: (1) Criterion (i) Add: "and includes a detailed design statement" (2) Criterion (ii): Change to " ... relates well to any existing building or feature ... " (3) Add to criterion (ii) "use of", to read: "... detailing and use of materials" (4) Criterion (iii): Change to "in townscape terms, and by respecting the existing alley-ways and yards ..." (5) Para 5.57: Amend first sentence to acknowledge recent loss and degradation of alley-ways, or specify what is meant by 'recent years'. (S)

Response (1) It is accepted that design is an important consideration in planning policy. In recognition of this, Policy GD1(xi) requires a design statement for certain types of development, for example on sensitive sites. It is not always possible or appropriate, however, to require a detailed design statement to be submitted. (No change) (2) Add in 'or feature' after 'adjacent building'. (Change) (3) In this context 'use of materials' is covered by the wording of the criterion (i.e. "materials"). (No change) (4) The wording of this criterion ("... maximising and enhancing pedestrian accessibility through the Centre and between the principal shopping streets and the surrounding car parks") covers the alley-ways and yards within its scope, and would require that future development respects these. (No change) (5) The Council considers that the first sentence in para. 5.57 is justified in that recent development has resulted in the improvement or reopening of some alleyways, although it is accepted that some minor alleyways have not been opened up. (No change) Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 105 Policy DE13 Policy: DE13 Business and Office Development Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/214/DE13/O 1111 Objection Policy 17 of the RJLSP requires that where capacity is not available within or adjoining town centres, major office development should take into account relevant principles of sustainable development, with particular regard to the need for accessibility by public transport. This is not made reference to within Policy DE13. (F) Response Add in reference to accessibility by public transport to Policy DE13. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 106 Policy DE14 Policy: DE14 Development Opportunity Sites Appley Bridge East Quarry Appley Lane North Surname Company Mainsprint Limited Reference F/1154/201/DE14/O 1154 Objection There is no interest in the East Quarry site, Appley Bridge, for the uses suggested by the policy. The principle of residential development is accepted on DE14 sites (Skelmersdale College). There are extant permissions on part of the allocated DE14 site in Appley Bridge for residential uses. Residential uses would not compromise the Council's policies. (S). Response As stated at the earlier Deposit stage, residential development should not be permitted as this would contribute to housing oversupply. Circumstances are different at Skelmersdale College as Policy DE1 allows for housing as part of a mixed use scheme in Skelmersdale. The Structure Plan does not allow for market housing in Appley Bridge. Extant permissions may or may not be implemented, but this does not alter the basic policy position on this site, and future applications should be determined in the light of this policy. Recommendation No Change

Skelmersdale Skelmersdale College Surname Turner Company Environment Agency Reference F/1089/203/DE14/O 1089 Objection Paragraph 5.64a-there is need to restrict surface water run-off to existing rates, in order that existing capacity problems in the receiving watercourses are not made worse - as per East Quarry site . The use of sustainable drainage schemes should be encouraged. (S) Response Policy GD1(xv) deals with this matter, including the use of sustainable drainage schemes where feasible, and development would need to be judged against this. East Quarry is mentioned due to the particular drainage problems at this site. Recommendation No Change

Skelmersdale College Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/212/DE14/O 1098 Objection The site was previously allocated as Green Space. PPG17 says that there should be an audit of open space & recreational land and should the land be developed then it should be shown to be surplus to requirements. Mention of residential uses at Skelmersdale College in the justification should be reconciled with Policy itself which does not permit residential uses. (S) Response The Policy will be amended to mention that residential uses as part of a mixed development scheme at Skelmersdale College may be appropriate. The site allocated under this policy does not include any of the open space - merely that land occupied by the former College buildings and car park, therefore there is no need to demonstrate the test set out in PPG17. Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 107 Policy DE14 Surname Company Persimmon Homes (NW) Ltd Reference F/1125/204/DE14/O 1125 Objection The St. Richards Lower School site should be treated in the same way as Skelmersdale College and some residential development should be allowed there. (S) Response The St. Richards Lower School site has been allocated for a mix of uses for some time and is required to provide a mixed development on the former school site, which has already been largely developed for housing. Recommendation

Skelmersdale College Whalleys Ashurst Road Surname Company Skelmersdale College Reference F/1149/201/DE14/O 1149 Objection There is no demand for community, educational or retail uses on this site. Policy should be changed to DE2 (S) Response The site is well located in relation to Ashurst Retail Centre and would also be a good location for community or leisure uses. There is no evidence that there would not be a demand for such uses in this location. The policy is to be amended to allow for an element of residential uses within a mix of development at this site, as is already stipulated in the justification. Recommendation No Change

Skelmersdale College Whalleys Ashurst Road Surname Company Somerfield Stores Ltd Reference F/2264/201/DE14/O 2264 Objection Only appropriate retail uses should be permitted on the Skelmersdale College site. (S) Response Agree that reference to 'small scale retail facilities suitable for the local centre' could be inserted to clarify this matter. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 108 Policy DE14A Policy: DE14A Tollgate Road /Pippin Street, Burscough Burscough Land at Lordsgate Lane/Pippin Street Lordsgate Lane / Pippin Street Surname Gill Company Burscough Parish Council Reference F/1393/201/DE14A/O 1393 Objection Would like SPG to guide any proposals. Need to ensure the provision of a roundabout at the earliest time. Concerns over the increased HGV traffic. (S) Response The Council fully supports improvements to the junction of Liverpool Road and Pippin Street. Supplementary guidance may be useful, although it would be prudent to await the outcome of the local plan process and the current planning application. Proposals will require a Transport Assessment. Recommendation No Change

Tollgate Road/Pippin Street Tollgate Road Surname Company Demick (Shipping) Ltd Reference F/2266/202/DE14A/O 2266 Objection Site at Tollgate Rd /Pippin Street, Burscough, should be deleted as it is a greenfield site and is unsustainable. Brownfield sites, such as Tarleton Mill, should be allocated instead. (S) Response This site is partly a brownfield site due to former airfield bun ker on the land. Burscough is classed as a key service centre by the Replacement Structure Plan, and therefore serves a function for the surrounding area. Employment uses would be permitted on the Tarleton Mill site. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 109 Policy DE15 Policy: DE15 Tourism Development Surname Bracewell Company Leisure Lakes Reference F/1070/201/DE15/O 1070 Objection Improvements to existing facilities does not satisfactorily reflect the potential of large scale leisure destinations such as Leisure Lakes. (S) Response Proposals for any large scale development in the Green Belt would conflict with both Local Planning Policy and national guidance contained within PPG2 (para's 3.1, 3.2, 3.3). Specific proposals will need to be considered on their merits. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company Harrison Leisure UK Ltd Reference F/2191/202/DE15/O 2191 Objection The last paragraph of Policy DE15 should be amended to allow for the potential expansion of existing tourist facilities in West Lancashire, provided certain criteria are met. (S) Response The expansion of existing tourist facilities, particularly in Green Belt locations, has to be considered very carefully in terms of the effect on the Green Belt on any proposed expansion / development of the site. Although careful expansion of existing facilities are permitted through policy DE15 any development has to be considered in terms of the surrounding Green Belt. It is felt that the existing criteria in the policy DE15 allows this. Any criteria to allow the expansion of the site beyond the existing boundaries would be contrary to Green Belt guidance and would have to be considered as an exemption to policy at the time of any future planning application. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 110 Policy SC1 Policy: SC1 Sports, Recreational, Leisure and Cultural Facilities Surname Wright Company Dalton Parish Council Reference F/1059/202/SC1/O 1059 Objection Objects to the failure to include any provision to develop new bridleways / cycleways as required by LCC PROW Plan 2004. The Plan should indicate a commitment to increased provision for horse-riding, cycling and walking. (S) Response A cycling study of Skelmersdale has been completed which identified improvements to cycling routes in and around the town, work is currently underway to implement recommendations from the study. Policy SC3 relates to the development of three multi -user routes around the District which will provide provision for cyclists, pedestrians and horse-riders. Recommendation No Change

Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/213/SC1/O 1098 Objection Policy should refer to PPG17 which states that existing open space, sports and recreational buildings / land should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown that the facility is surplus to requirements. For open space 'surplus to requirements' should include consideration of all functions that open space can perform. (S) Response It is agreed to include this message within the justification to Policy SC1. Recommendation Change

Surname Hubbard Company The National Trust Reference F/1128/206/SC1/O 1128 Objection It should be made clear that all of the items need (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) need to be satisfactorily addressed in order for a proposed development to comply with this policy. Furthermore, add and to the end of sub-paragraphs 1) and 2). Response Wording is considered strong enough to make clear that all four points must be addressed. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company Skelmersdale College Reference F/1149/203/SC1/O 1149 Objection SC1 land at Skelmersdale College should be reallocated as DE2 land to all allow for housing development to be permitted as part of an overall regeneration scheme for Skelmersdale. (S) Response The SC1 site at Skelmersdale College represents an important recreational green space which should retained for future use, as part of the development of the DE14 site adjacent. Recommendation No Change

Surname Ball Company Reference F/2235/201/SC1/O 2235 Objection Concerned that developers will use justification to relocate / redesign or remove local parks or allotments. Council should ensure this does not take place. (S) Response Policy SC1 states that development resulting in the loss of playing fields will only be development if it meets four key criteria, as outlined by Sport England. Para 6.6 provides flexibility for the removal of open space if the facility is felt to be unsafe and could be redesigned, removed or relocated as part of a wider scheme offering a range of benefits to the local community. Any such proposal would require the overall support of the local community. Recommendation No Change (S=summarised; F=full text) Page 111 Policy SC1 Mere Brow Leisure Lakes Surname Bracewell Company Leisure Lakes Reference F/1070/202/SC1/O 1070 Objection Policy LE18 relating to tourism and recreational facilities at Leisure Lakes from the current Adopted Local Plan should be reinstated. (S) Response There has been a reduction of policies within the Local Plan to reflect guidance given in the 'Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill' issued by the Government in July 2002. Policies SC1 and DE15 of the Plan give scope for the potential expansion of Leisure Lakes as a tourist facility subject to Green Belt and environmental issues. Recommendation No Change

Up Holland Hallbridge Farmhouse Dingle Road Surname Baker Company Reference F/1965/202/SC1/O 1965 Objection Part of the garden of Hallbridge Farmhouse is allocated as part of a sports, recreational, leisure and cultural facility as designated under Policy SC1. This is an anomaly, as there are no recognisable features on the ground. The boundary needs to be corrected. (S) Response It is agreed to amend the boundaries of the adjacent SC1 land at Dingle Road, Up Holland thus removing the garden at Hallbridge Farm from the SC1 allocation. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 112 Policy SC2 Policy: SC2 Recreation Facilities Appley Bridge Stoneygate Lane Surname Maloney Company Reference F/1320/201/SC2/O 1320 Objection Objects to the proposal for a recreational facility at Stoneygate Lane due to loss of Green Belt, damage to local environment, traffic issues and risks to pedestrians - particularly at the junction of Stoneygate Lane and Appley Lane North. Recommends that recreational facilities should be in the centre of the village, where there can be access by foot and gives a change to utilise unsightly areas. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Winstanley Company Reference F/1326/201/SC2/O 1326 Objection Objections to proposed informal play area at Stoneygate Lane remain the same as previously at Knockout Field, it would require an area very much less than proposed. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Burns Company Reference F/1331/201/SC2/O 1331 Objection No need for proposed facilities at Stoneygate Lane, there are existing facilities within walking distance. Concerns regarding further traffic to the site. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 113 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Kelly Company Reference F/1333/201/SC2/O 1333 Objection The size of the site at Stoneygate Lane could be reduced of both the proposed playground and a smaller car park area would give way to less noise. Expansion of the play area could be considered at a later date if the play area is widely used. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Rimmer Company Reference F/1343/201/SC2/O 1343 Objection Previous play area on Stoneygate Lane was developed for housing, the Council have given no assurance that the proposed play area will not be developed in the future. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 114 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Waddington Company Reference F/1348/201/SC2/O 1348 Objection When planning consent was granted for the infill of West Quarry, Appley Lane North (circa 1980), it was upon the condition that, when completed the area was to be used for a 'large children's play area', 'Adults leisure facilities' and tennis courts - as it is a central location for the village. There is therefore no need for a facility at Stoneygate Lane. The area proposed is totally unsuitable for this purpose, the area will be unsafe and attract anti-social behaviour which will be to the detriment of surrounding residents. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any d evelopment of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Further investigation will be made regarding the condition placed upon the infill of the West Quarry, however it is noted that the infilling of the quarry may still be in progress. It is considered that the allocation of an informal play site at Stoneygate Lane should be proposed as a local facility irrespective of a potential planning condition for large scale children's and adult facilities within the village. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Moran Company Reference F/1352/201/SC2/O 1352 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as it is an erosion of the countryside, a proposal to create a play area would possibly lead to increasing anti-social behaviour in the locality, who would maintain and supervise the site? (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 115 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Smith Company Reference F/1395/201/SC2/O 1395 Objection Objects to the proposals at Stoneygate Lane. Few children live in area. Would attract vandals. No obstruction from parked vehicles. (S)) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Behenna Company Reference F/1408/201/SC2/O 1408 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as increased traffic would create safety issues for pedestrians, there would be an increase in anti-social behaviour which would particularly effect the elderly residents, a play area would create further litter problems in the area. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Maloney Company Reference F/1409/201/SC2/O 1409 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as it is an infringement of Green Belt land, access to the site from Appley Lane North is poor and there is an existing play area on Appley Lane South which could be improved instead of creating a new site. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 116 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Cook Company Reference F/1411/201/SC2/O 1411 Objection Would only be in support of the proposal for a play area on Stoneygate Lane if traffic calming measures were introduced to Stoneygate Lane, resident parking permits were introduced to reduce potential parking problems and improvements to the litter collection in the area. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Appropriate measures regarding traffic, parking and litter will be considered at a future consultation / design stage. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Blackledge Company Reference F/1412/201/SC2/O 1412 Objection Proposal for a children's play area at Stoneygate Lane would increase anti-social behaviour problems. Previous play site was developed for sheltered housing, concern that this could happen again. Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public cons ultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Sixsmith & Hulmes Company Reference F/1413/201/SC2/O 1413 Objection Does not consider the proposal site at Stoneygate Lane to be an appropriate location for a play area due to the number of cars using Stoneygate Lane, this would have a detrimental impact on children's safety. Also concerned about any possibility for off street car parking as part of any future proposal. Any development will detract from the rural nature of the area. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 117 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Birchall Company Reference F/1414/201/SC2/O 1414 Objection Objects to the proposed children's play area at Stoneygate Lane. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Oliver Company Reference F/1415/201/SC2/O 1415 Objection Considers that the current proposal site at Stoneygate Lane is not appropriate, the site is too clos e to Fairy Glen and surrounding residential property, there are also parking and access issues to consider. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Peters Company Reference F/1416/201/SC2/O 1416 Objection Objects to the relocation of the site from Knockout Field to Stoneygate Lane. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Site has been relocated to the other side of Appley Lane North to provide better access for pedestrians. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 118 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Peters Company Reference F/1476/201/SC2/O 1476 Objection Objects to the proposal as access to Stoneygate Lane is poor, there are existing play areas in Appley Bridge, there is available parking for Fairy Glen. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Gerrard Company Reference F/1562/201/SC2/O 1562 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane due to the anti -social behaviour this proposal will create, to the detriment of local residents. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Martindale Company Reference F/1576/201/SC2/O 1576 Objection The allocated area encircles accommodation for the elderly on Stoneygate Lane, the proposed play area would encourage anti-social behaviour in the area. This would be at the detriment of residential amenity for the local residents.

Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 119 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Lomax Company Reference F/1594/201/SC2/O 1594 Objection Does not wish to see the proposal contain any car parking facilities, otherwise has no objection to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane. (F) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Tomlinson Company Reference F/1603/201/SC2/O 1603 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as the noise disturbance will affect local residents' amenity. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname McMullin Company Reference F/1624/201/SC2/O 1624 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as it conflicts with existing Skelmersdale & Eastern Parishes Plan, would constitute an erosion of the Green Belt, destroy active agricultural land, damage the ecologically sensitive area of Fairy Glen, there is no demand for such a facility in the area and existing facilities are located in Appley Lane South, existing car parking is available around the Fairy Glen area, residential amenity to local residents would be lost. Concerned that the proposal site would be developed for other purposes in the future. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any d evelopment of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. The Skelmersdale & Eastern Parishes Plan was superseded by the West Lancashire Local Plan (adopted in 1999) which itself will be superseded by the Replacement West Lancashire Local Plan which will hopefully be adopted in 2006. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 120 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname McMullin Company Reference F/1647/201/SC2/O 1647 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as it conflicts with existing Skelmersdale & Eastern Parishes Plan, would constitute an erosion of the Green Belt, destroy active agricultural land, damage the ecologically sensitive area of Fairy Glen, there is no demand for such a facility in the area and existing facilities are located in Appley Lane South, existing car parking is available around the Fairy Glen area, residential amenity to local residents would be lost. Concerned that the proposal site would be developed for other purposes in the future. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. The Skelmersdale & Eastern Parishes Plan was superseded by the West Lancashire Local Plan (adopted in 1999) which itself will be superseded by the Replacement West Lancashire Local Plan which will hopefully be adopted in 2006. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Aspinall Company Reference F/1659/201/SC2/O 1659 Objection Objects to the proposals at Stoneygate Lane on the grounds of the loss of Green Belt and agricultural land, damage to wildlife, damage to an ecologically sensitive area of Fairy Glen, loss of residential amenity, the site would be vulnerable to future development, would create safety issues if children are left un-supervised particularly as access to Stoneygate Lane from Appley Lane North is poor. Traffic would increase in the locality and there are few children living in the immediate vicinity. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 121 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lan e Surname Bolton Company Reference F/1668/201/SC2/O 1668 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as it is contrary to planning policy relating to Green Belts, the site would be vulnerable to future development, damage to the ecologically sens itive site of Fairy Glen, safety issues such as additional traffic, noise disturbance to local residents, no evidence of demand for such a facility, loss of agricultural land, adequate parking exists in the area for Fairy Glen and residential amenity of local residents adversely affected. (S)

Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Walker Company Reference F/1681/201/SC2/O 1681 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as it is contrary to planning policy relating to Green Belts, the site would be vulnerable to future development, damage to the ecologically sensitive site of Fairy Glen, safety issues such as additional traffic, noise disturbance to local residents, no evidence of demand for such a facility, loss of agricultural land, adequate parking exists in the area for Fairy Glen and residential amenity of local residents adversely affected. (S)

Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 122 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Campbell Company Reference F/1777/201/SC2/O 1777 Objection Lack of detail in the proposal makes it difficult to support, if there were any plans to include any permanent structures ( i.e. toilets, car park etc) we would be against it, particularly as there are no current parking problems on Stoneygate Lane. Would support a proposal that integrated the land as a protected buffer zone as part of the Fairy Glen, where children could play, and people walk there dogs. (F) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will s erve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Hisley Company Reference F/1793/201/SC2/O 1793 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane due to the noise disturbance which will affect adjoining Fairy Glen site, the proposal will create a large increase in vehicular / pedestrian traffic disturbing local residents, access to Stoneygate Lane from Appley Lane North is a dangerous one and increased use will lead to further accidents, there is very limited parking currently and not enough capacity to cope with this proposal, any development of a car park in this site will create anti social behaviour and rubbish problems. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Fisher Company Reference F/1817/201/SC2/O 1817 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as it is contrary to Green Belt policy, safety issues arise as the play area will be adjacent to woodland, traffic in the area would be increased, large proportion of elderly people live in the area therefore there is no need for such a facility, anti social behaviour would affect residential amenity. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 123 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Lowe Company Reference F/1829/201/SC2/O 1829 Objection Objects to the proposed play area at Stoneygate Lane as it would lead to a increase in anti-social behaviour in the area, to the detriment of local elderly residents, there is no need for development particularly on Green Belt land. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any d evelopment of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname O'Neill Company Reference F/1869/201/SC2/O 1869 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as the land is a greenbelt area with the Fairy Glen to the side of it. Every autumn over one hundred Canada geese feed here. A play area would bring noise, litter, thus damaging the flora and fauna. There would be problems with the increased number of children particularly if they are in gangs which is intimidating, particularly to the local elderly population. Existing car parking is available in the vicinity of Fairy Glen, surrounding properties have private gardens where children can play safely, funds would be better spent on traffic lights at Appley Lane North and Hall Lane. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Ross Company Reference F/1876/201/SC2/O 1876 Objection Access to Stoneygate Lane to Appley Lane North is severely restricted. Two existing play areas in Appley Bridge within walking distance. Parking to the Glen is available on surrounding roads. There is no need to take Green Belt land for such a purpose when more available / accessible sites exist in Appley Bridge. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 124 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Robson Company Reference F/1947/201/SC2/O 1947 Objection Entry to Stoneygate Lane from Appley Lane North is very dangerous, a playground would create a further hazard. Does not think a play area is necessary. (F) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Payne Company Reference F/1957/201/SC2/O 1957 Objection The site at Stoneygate Lane is already in a vulnerable position adjacent to Fairy Glen. The provision of a car park and playground in such a close proximity could encourage loss of peace and of the habitat of flora and fauna. Youths would also be attracted to the area. The roads in the area are narrow and would not be ab le to cope with extra traffic, increased safety and congestion issues. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Turton Company Reference F/1958/201/SC2/O 1958 Objection An additional play area is not needed in the village. The road network to the proposed site at Stoneygate Lane is narrow and additional parking of vehicles would cause danger. The threat to Fairy Glenn through vandalism would be increased. If the proposed site was to include parking facilities this could cause danger for children playing on the site.

Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 125 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Hill Company Reference F/1961/201/SC2/O 1961 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as the area is predominantly populated by elderly people, whose residential amenity would be affected by such a proposal. It would also lead to a rise in anti-social behaviour in the area. (S)

Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Lowe Company Reference F/1963/201/SC2/O 1963 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as the increase in anti-social behaviour will be detrimental to residential amenity, particularly for elderly residents. The proposal would increase traffic in the local roads creating congestion and parking problems. The site is within the Green Belt and would also result in a loss of agricultural land, proposal would conflict with the Skelmersdale and Eastern Parishes Local Plan. Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. The Skelmersdale & Eastern Parishes Plan was superseded by the West Lancashire Local Plan (adopted in 1999) which itself will be superseded by the Replacement West Lancashire Local Plan which will hopefully be adopted in 2006. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 126 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Bolton Company Reference F/1964/201/SC2/O 1964 Objection Proposal at Stoneygate Lane contravenes Green Belt Policy, create noise disturbance, damage local wildlife, no evidence of need, would make the site possible to future development, it borders an ecologically sensitive site around which Green Belt forms a protective buffer, Stoneygate Lane is a site for sheltered housing whose safety / peace would be jeopardized by additional traffic and noise, extra traffic at the junction of Stoneygate Lane / Appley Lane North would be a traffic hazard, money would be better spent on improving Fairy Glen. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surnam e Gibson Company Reference F/1966/201/SC2/O 1966 Objection Previous play area developed for sheltered housing because there was no local need for such provision, the proposal would create noise disturbance, existing anti-social behaviour problems would be exacerbated, no evidence of local demand, additional traffic would be created, loss of Green Belt and the potential destruction of Fairy Glen. (F)

Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 127 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Gerrard Company Reference F/2008/201/SC2/O 2008 Objection The proposal at Stoneygate Lane will have an effect on the character of the Fairy Glen. A car parking area will improve access to undesirable elements especially late night diners e.g. McDonalds, KFC. Whereby the rubbish would be thrown out of the cars. I don't believe the litter will be controlled. Fencing the area and locking it at dusk would be partly the answer but probably impractical. All the above problems will occur and spoil the glen. It would be better the place the playground somewhere else so that it does not spoil the glen preferably in good walking distance from the glen. (S)

Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Thompson Company Reference F/2014/201/SC2/O 2014 Objection The proposed site at Stoneygate Lane has a busy turning point for traffic and small children on bikes running around would undoubtedly lead to an accident. Disruption to the older people with increased traffic and children would not be acceptable. This is planned near the entry to Fairy Glen and in summer parking is a nuisance. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 128 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Thornton Company Reference F/2158/201/SC2/O 2158 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane because the site borders an ecologically sensitive site, would destroy agricultural land, amenity of sheltered accommodation on Stoneygate Lane would be jeopardized, along with residents of Sprodley Drive. Stoneygate Lane is narrow with a blind access onto Appley Lane North, adequate parking existing for Fairy Glen on A5209, no children live in the vicinity, encroachment of development into the Green Belt, contravention of Green Belt policy, make the site vulnerable to future development, create safety issues and noise disturbance, damage flora and fauna and no real evidence of need. (F) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Allen Company Reference F/2165/201/SC2/O 2165 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane because the site borders an ecologically sensitive site, would destroy agricultural land, amenity of sheltered accommodation on Stoneygate Lane would be jeopardized, along with residents of Sprodley Drive. Stoneygate Lane is narrow with a blind access onto Appley Lane North, adequate parking existing for fairy glen on A5209, no children live in the vicinity, encroachment of development into the Green Belt, contravention of Green Belt policy, make the site vulnerable to future development, create safety issues and noise disturbance, damage flora and fauna and no real evidence of need. (F) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 129 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Deakin Company Reference F/2169/201/SC2/O 2169 Objection Would support the proposal at Stoneygate Lane in principle if there were assurances about the site's future, that the site be protected as part of a conservation area and no building were to take place on the site. Car parking is unnecessary and will lead to long term problems, particularly with anti-social behaviour. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Deakin Company Reference F/2171/201/SC2/O 2171 Objection There is a need for a play area in the vicinity of Stoneygate Lane but there would be negative effects including damage to the glen, litter, vandals and youths being attracted to the site. Assurances would have to be made that the proposal site would be protected from future development as part of a conservation area. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provis ion of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Fearnley Company Reference F/2181/201/SC2/O 2181 Objection Object to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as it would contravene Green Belt policy, would make the site vulnerable to future development, local roads inadequate for such a proposal, there would be noise disturbance, there is no evidence of need for such a facility, the site borders an ecologically sensitive area and the residential amenity of neighbouring residents would be affected. Object to any proposed car park as it would result in the destruction of agricultural land, access to Stoneygate Lane from Appley Lane North is dangerous and extra traffic would exacerbate highway safety issues. There is adequate parking for Fairy Glen on the A5209. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 130 Policy SC2 Stoneygate Lane Surname Deakin Company Reference F/2192/201/SC2/O 2192 Objection I support the idea of a playground at Stoneygate Lane but there are several implications that could occur. Increased traffic, litter and numerous problems could emerge. Has strong objections to any proposed car parking within the proposal (S). Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local community. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Stoneygate Lane Surname Derbyshire Company Reference F/2223/201/SC2/O 2223 Objection Objects to the proposal at Stoneygate Lane as there is restricted access onto Stoneygate Lane from Appley Lane North, old people live close to the proposal site, would spoil the natural beauty of Fairy Glen, would present a traffic nuisance, give opportunity for anti-social behaviour to occur, ample parking exists on the A5209 and the loss of farmland is unacceptable. (S) Response The Council consider that there is a need for such a facility in the Dangerous Corner area of Appley Bridge, the closest existing facility being on Appley Lane South, approximately 1.5 km away. The site will remain in the Green Belt, restricting any development of the site, and would be used for informal recreation, providing childrens play equipment on the site which will serve the immediate local comm unity. It is not considered the provision of a childrens play area in thi area will have a significant detrimental impact on the adjacent area of Fairy Glen and the loss of agricultural land will not be irreversible. Although the current proposal site is approximately 0.54ha in size, it is agreed to reduce the size of the proposed site to 0.4ha to better reflect the nature of the proposal. An extensive public consultation exercise will be undertaken to consider all residents' views into the design and layout of proposed play area once required funding is in place. Recommendation No Change

Skelmersdale Beacon Country Park Surname Lawton Company Reference F/1114/201/SC2/O 1114 Objection Beacon Park should be protected from recreational development. We would like to ensure that Beacon Park is protected for future generations as an area of unspoilt beauty with no development. Response Beacon Country Park is allocated as Green Belt land under Policy DS2. It has a further allocation under Policy EN1 which protects the park for its biodiversity value. Both policies combined place a heavy restriction on any future development of the park. Any future development of the park for recreational purposes would have to be considered in conjunction with policy SC2. This policy states that proposals to protect and improve facilities at Beacon Country Park will be considered. Any future development proposed for the park which would be detrimental to the character of the park would be considered contrary to the three policies previously referred to. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 131 Policy SC3 Policy: SC3 Linear Parks Surname Rusbridge Company English Nature Reference F/1085/217/SC3/O 1085 Objection Whilst consideration upon the potential impact to nature conservation has been included, there is no commitment within the policy to enhance the sites specifically for nature conservation. An examination of the nature conservation potential of the schemes should be included within the redrafting of this policy. (S) Response The following wording should be added to the end of the penultimate paragraph of Policy SC3 "..... and improvements to its biodiversity potential.". Appropriate wording should be added to para 6.10 of the justification. Recommendation Change

Tarleton/Hesketh Bank Linear Park Surname Hilton Company Reference F/1101/201/SC3/O 1101 Objection Does not object in principle to the Tarleton/Hesketh Bank Linear Park, but wishes to be kept updated as would object to anything infringing privacy or safety. (F) Response Residents will be kept informed of, and involved in, future plans for the linear park Recommendation No Change

Banks Banks Linear Park Surname Draper Company Reference F/1024/204/SC3/O 1024 Objection General support for the Banks Linear Park. Links to the Linear Park will need to be considered, such as from Aveling Drive. (S) Response The objectors general support for the Banks Linear Park is welcomed. Safe links to the Linear Park, for example from Aveling Drive, will be important. Whilst these do not need to be shown specifically in the Plan, they will need to be considered when detailed designs for the route are considered. Recommendation No Change

Banks Linear Park Surname Wynn Company Reference F/2123/201/SC3/O 2123 Objection Supports the proposal for a Banks Linear park, but recommends the text should consider providing links within the settlement. (F) Response The objectors general support for the Banks Linear Park is welcomed. Safe links to the Linear Park, for example from Aveling Drive, will be important. Whilst these do not need to be shown specifically in the Plan, they will need to be considered when detailed designs for the route are considered. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 132 Policy SC3 Banks Linear Park Surname Burrows Company Reference F/2124/201/SC3/O 2124 Objection Strongly support the proposal for a Banks Linear Park, but should improve linkages in the locality. (S) Response The objectors general support for the Banks Linear Park is welcomed. Safe links to the Linear Park, for example from Aveling Drive, will be important. Whilst these do not need to be shown specifically in the Plan, they will need to be considered when detailed designs for the route are cons idered. Recommendation No Change

Banks Linear Park Surname Ball Company Reference F/2125/201/SC3/O 2125 Objection Supports the Banks Linear Park improvements, providing there is linkage within the village. (F) Response The objectors general support for the Banks Linear Park is welcomed. Safe links to the Linear Park, for example from Aveling Drive, will be important. Whilst these do not need to be shown specifically in the Plan, they will need to be considered when detailed designs for the route are considered. Recommendation No Change

Banks Linear Park Surname Harley Company Reference F/2126/204/SC3/O 2126 Objection General support for the Banks Linear Park. Links to the Linear Park will need to be considered, such as from Aveling Drive. (S) Response The objectors general support for the Banks Linear Park is welcomed. Safe links to the Linear Park, for example from Aveling Drive, will be important. Whilst these do not need to be shown specifically in the Plan, they will need to be considered when detailed designs for the route are considered. Recommendation No Change

Banks Linear Park Surname Sears Company North Meols Parish Council Reference F/2232/201/SC3/O 2232 Objection The Parish Council supports this policy for the Banks Linear Park with the addition that it will provide links within the village settlements in particular with Aveling Drive (S) Response The objectors general support for the Banks Linear Park is welcomed. Safe links to the Linear Park, for example from Aveling Drive, will be important. Whilst these do not need to be shown specifically in the Plan, they will need to be considered when detailed designs for the route are considered. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 133 Policy SC3 Burscough Leeds /Live rpool Canal Surname Melling Company Reference F/2216/203/SC3/O 2216 Objection Burscough section of the Leeds / Liverpool canal not included in the proposal. The canal is an important area for Burscough, safely managed this will also protect waterfowl found in these areas. (S) Response The importance of the canal is recognised by the Council. Policy SC3 deals with new proposals, whereas the canal is an existing recreational resource. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 134 Policy SC4 Policy: SC4 Educational Facilities Surname Smith Company Government Office for the North West Reference F/1098/214/SC4/O 1098 Objection GONW draw attention to PPG17, para 10, which states: Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space or the buildings and land to be surplus to requirements. For open space, "surplus to requirements" should include consideration of all the functions that open space can perform. This message should be incorporated into Policy SC4. (S) Response Reword Policy SC4 and its justification as appropriate to reflect the requirement of PPG17 para. 10. Recommendation Change

Ormskirk Edge Hill St Helens Rd Surname Company Edge Hill College of Higher Education Reference F/1165/203/SC4/O 1165 Objection The area to which Policy SC4 applies and is defined on the proposals map as the existing campus should be extended to form a more logical boundary that includes the athletics track, sports facilities and car parks on the eastern side of the campus, which are all integral components of the operational area of the college campus, and clearly constitute previously developed land. In this context, and clearly lying within and enclosed by the campus and existing development on all but one side, there is no logical reason or particular planning benefit for their continued exclusion (F).

Response Change SC4 boundary as suggested (up to the Green Belt boundary). Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 135 Policy SC5 Policy: SC5 Health Facilities Surname Duffy Company Downholland Parish Plan Steering Group Reference F/2166/205/SC5/O 2166 Objection The policy states that the health services should be available locally, this is not the case in Downholland and direct public transport links are not in place. (F) Response Policy SC5 relates to the provision of health facilities within the District. The policy states that new health care facilities should be located in town centres, local shopping areas or other locations accessible by public transport. Public transport facilities exist allowing access from rural areas to these areas, these include schemes West Lancashire Dial-a-ride. No change necessary. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 136 Policy SC6 Policy: SC6 Roads

Surname Hodson Company Reference F/1005/202/SC6/O 1005 Objection Policy fails to address the impact of development on the moss road infrastructure in the Northern Parishes and the lack of public transport servicing these areas. More strategic approach by local industry and planners is needed. (F) Response As West Lancashire District Council are not the Highways Authority for the District, it is not within the remit of the Local Plan to propose / implement the development of new roads. However, Policy DE7 relates to agricultural produce packing facilities, point (v) states that development will only be permitted provided that the traffic generated can be satisfactorily accommodated on the local road network and will not be detrimental to residential amenity. Further to this it is agreed that wording will be added to the justification to make clear the importance of both the District and County Council's working together to address local issues. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Hodson Company Northern Parishes Public Transport Focus Reference F/1006/202/SC6/O 1006 Objection The policy fails to address the impact of development on the moss road infrastructure in the Northern Parishes and the lack of public transport serving these areas. (S) Response As West Lancashire District Council are not the highways authority for the District, it is not within the remit of the Local Plan to propose / implement the development of new roads. However, policy DE7 relates to agricultural produce packing facilities, point (v) states that development will only be permitted provided that the traffic generated can be satisfactorily accommodated on the local road network and will not be detrimental to residential amenity. Further to this it is agreed that wording will be added to the justification to make clear the importance of both the District and County Council's working together to address local issues. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Sears Company Tarleton Parish Council Reference F/1012/202/SC6/O 1012 Objection The policy fails to address the impact of development on the moss road infrastructure in the Northern Parishes. A more strategic approach is needed by local industry and planners (F) Response As West Lancashire District Council are not the highways authority for the District, it is not within the remit of the Local Plan to propose / implement the development of new roads. However, policy DE7 relates to agricultural produce packing facilities, point (v) states that development will only be permitted provided that the traffic generated can be satisfactorily accommodated on the local road network and will not be detrimental to residential amenity. Further to this it is agreed that wording will be added to the justification to make clear the importance of both the District and County Council's working together to address local issues. Further to this it is agreed that wording will be added to the justification to make clear the importance of both the District and County Council's working together to address local issues. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Ashcroft Company Tarleton Village Design (TVDG) Reference F/1013/212/SC6/O 1013 Objection Policy fails to address the impact of moss road infrastructure in the Northern Parishes (F) Response As West Lancashire District Council are not the highways authority for the District, it is not within the remit of the Local Plan to propose / implement the development of new roads. However, policy DE7 relates to agricultural produce packing facilities, point (v) states that development will only be permitted provided that the traffic generated can be satisfactorily accommodated on the local road network and will not be detrimental to residential amenity. Further to this it is agreed that wording will be added to the justification to make clear the importance of both the District and County Council's working together to address local issues. Recommendation Partial C hange

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 137 Policy SC6 Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/216/SC6/O 1111 Objection Background documents should refer to the updated Structure Plan and SPG to Access and Parking. (S) Response Agreed to update background documents for SC6. Recommendation Change

Ormskirk Bypass Surname Jenkinson Company Reference F/1209/201/SC6/O 1209 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road on the Ormskirk Bypass proposal as it is not necessary and will increase existing traffic problems and there is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends. It is recommended that an overpass / underpass is developed. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Surname Simpson Company Reference F/2116/214/SC6/O 2116 Objection The policy fails to address the impact on the moss road infrastructure in the Northern Parishes. (F) Response As West Lancashire District Council are not the highways authority for the District, it is not within the remit of the Local Plan to propose / implement the development of new roads. However, policy DE7 relates to agricultural produce packing facilities, point (v) states that development will only be permitted provided that the traffic generated can be satisfactorily accommodated on the local road network and will not be detrimental to residential amenity. Further to this it is agreed that wording will be added to the justification to make clear the importance of both the District and County Council's working together to address local issues. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname George Company West Lancs Green Party Reference F/2130/201/SC6/O 2130 Objection The plan does not define Comprehensive Transport Assessments. It is not necessary to build new roads as the districts traffic and congestion levels will increase dramatically. HGVs should not be allowed into urban centres and should be restricted to the outskirts of town. C ar sharing, 'walk to school' groups and car patrols should be encouraged. Speed limits should be reduced to 20mph in all residential areas and 'home zones' should be developed. (S)

Response Relevant Government guidance exists on the preparation of Transport Assessments and Travel Plans (which include Green Transport Plans) which must be considered in relation to policy SC6. A wide range of transport developments are proposed within the Local Plan. Policy SC6 relates to Ormskirk Bypass. Policy SC7 relates to the improvement of the public transport network throughout the District and the development of bus / rail interchanges. Policy SC3 relates to linear parks, multi-user paths for cycling / walking and horse-riding. It is not within the remit of the Local Plan to change speed limits within the District, Lancashire County Council, as the designated highways authority, would be responsible for this. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 138 Policy SC6 Ormskirk Bypass Surname Pincock Company Reference F/2141/201/SC6/O 2141 Objection Policy SC6 should explicitly state that any proposals for a bypass will be subject to a full environmental impact assessment and that the 'no net loss' approach must be followed in terms of social and economic capital. The policy should also state the need and justification for the bypass in terms of policy TR4 of the RSS for the North West. (S) Response Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being indentified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. The Ormskirk Bypass is designed to relieve Ormskirk Town Centre of congestion and offer an alternative and more direct route for HGV's travelling from the M58 to Southport.

There is currently an environmental impact assessment being undertaken for the proposed route of the bypass. Not being the highways authority for the District, West Lancashire District Council within policy SC6 merely safeguards the proposed bypass from any development that would prejudice the route. The bypass proposal will be judged against national and regional policies within any future planning application made by Lancashire County Council, where there will be a further chance for consultation within the planning application process. Recommendation No Change

Surname Ashcroft Company Reference F/2228/212/SC6/O 2228 Objection The policy fails to address the impact of development on the moss road infrastructure. (F) Response As West Lancashire Dis trict Council are not the highways authority for the District, it is not within the remit of the Local Plan to propose / implement the development of new roads. However, policy DE7 relates to agricultural produce packing facilities, point (v) states that development will only be permitted provided that the traffic generated can be satisfactorily accommodated on the local road network and will not be detrimental to residential amenity. Recommendation No Change

Burscough Ormskirk Bypass Surname Gill Company Burscough Parish Council Reference F/1393/206/SC6/O 1393 Objection At para 6.33 a mention is made of traffic relief for Burscough but no specific mention is made of a spur from an Ormskirk bypass to Burscough industrial estate. We would support reference to this measure, which would bring relief from HGV traffic not only to Burscough roads but also Scarisbrick, Newburgh and Parbold. (F) Response Ormskirk Bypass is a project proposed by Lancashire County Council and the Local Transport Plan. Although the District Council could resolve to support such a scheme and recommend its inclusion in the Local Transport Plan, it is not within the remit of the Local Plan to propose such a scheme. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 139 Policy SC6 Ormskirk Bypass Surname Dereli Company Reference F/1901/205/SC6/O 1901 Objection Mention is made in the Local Plan of traffic relief for Burscough but no specific mention is made of a spur from an Ormskirk by-pass to Burscough industrial estate, I would urge the Council to support reference to this measure. The policy should also make reference to the Pippin Street /A59 junction improvements. (S) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is a project proposed by Lancashire County Council in the Local Transport Plan. Although the District Council could resolve to support such a scheme and recommend its inclusion in the Local Transport Plan, it is not within the remit of the Local Plan to propose such a scheme. In relation to the Pippin Street / A59 improvements Policy DE14A states that any development of the site must include appropriate highway improvements. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass Surname Melling Company Reference F/2216/202/SC6/O 2216 Objection Essential to the future health, safety and environment of Burscough residents, that a spur is added to the proposed by-pass linking to Burscough Industrial Estate, this will reduce HGV traffic. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is a project proposed by Lancashire County Council and in the Local Transport Plan. Although the District Council could resolve to support such a scheme and recommend its inclusion in the Local Transport Plan, it is not within the remit of the Local Plan to propose such a scheme. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass Surname Marsh Company Burscough Residents Against Transfer Reference F/2234/202/SC6/O 2234 Objection Recommends a spur be added to the proposed Ormskirk Bypass to Burscough industrial estate. (F) Response Ormskirk Bypass is a project proposed by Lancashire County Council and the Local Transport Plan. Although the District Council could resolve to support such a scheme and recommend its inclusion in the Local Transport Plan, it is not within the remit of the Local Plan to propose such a scheme. In relation to the Pippin Street / A59 improvements Policy DE14A of the planning states any development of the site must include appropriate highway improvements. Recommendation No Change

Hesketh Bank / Tarleton Surname Sumner Company Reference F/1904/201/SC6/O 1904 Objection There is no provision to deal with the vast increase in traffic in the Tarleton / Hesketh Bank area, particularly HGVs, over recent years. (S) Response It is not within the remit of the West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan to propose new road schemes within the District. Any new road proposed must be indicated within the Local Transport Plan which is produced by Lancashire County Council. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 140 Policy SC6 Lathom Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Dickie Company Reference F/1068/201/SC6/O 1068 Objection The junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road on the proposed Ormskirk Bypass is unnecessary as it will increase traffic on surrounding roads and cause more local traffic problems. There is a suitable junction at Four Lane Ends, there should be a footbridge / underpass created in this location. (S) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname McCluskey Company Reference F/1220/204/SC6/O 1220 Objection Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road junction of the proposed Ormskirk by-pass is not necessary as it will increase current traffic problems, an overpass / underpass should be constructed instead of a junction. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Hooker Company Reference F/1222/201/SC6/O 1222 Objection There is no need for a new junction to be created at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road on the proposed Ormskirk Bypass. There is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends which could be used. If the bypass does go ahead then the road should be undercut to reduce visual impact. (S) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 141 Policy SC6 Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Rimmer Company Reference F/1243/203/SC6/O 1243 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as it is not necessary and will increase existing traffic problems and there is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends. It is recommended that a overpass / underpass is developed. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Zoellner Company Reference F/1246/204/SC6/O 1246 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as it is not necessary and will increase existing traffic problems and there is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends. It is recommended that a overpass / underpass is developed. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Burns Company Reference F/1265/205/SC6/O 1265 Objection The junction at Lyelake Lane/Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass is not necessary as it will increase current traffic problems rather than reduce them and there will be in any case, a suitable junction only a short distance away at Four Lane ends. We feel there should be an overpass or an underpass instead of a junction. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 142 Policy SC6 Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Littlehales Company Reference F/1268/203/SC6/O 1268 Objection The junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Rd within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass is not necessary as it will increase traffic problems. There is a suitable junction at Four Lane Ends. Would prefer an overpass or underpass instead of a junction (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Fletcher Company Reference F/1278/202/SC6/O 1278 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as it is not necessary and will increase existing traffic problems and there is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends. It is recommended that a overpass / underpass is developed. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Blinkhorn Company Reference F/1293/204/SC6/O 1293 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as it is not necessary and will increase existing traffic problems and there is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends. It is recommended that a overpass / underpass is developed. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 143 Policy SC6 Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Clayton Company Reference F/1294/204/SC6/O 1294 Objection A junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass is unnecessary and exacerbate existing traffic problems. There should be a spur road off the proposed bypass to direct industrial traffic into Burscough, there should also be an overpass/underpass in the Lyelake Lane / Lathom road area. (S) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. The Ormskirk Bypass is a project proposed by Lancashire County Council and the Local Transport Plan. Although the District Council could resolve to support such a scheme as a spur road to Burscough and recommend its inclusion in the Local Transport Plan, it is not within the remit of the Local Plan to propose such a scheme. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Roughley Company Reference F/1375/202/SC6/O 1375 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane and Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as there is a suitable junction at Four Lane Ends. It would increase traffic problems and an underpass at the junction would be more appropriate. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname O'Hagen Company Reference F/1471/201/SC6/O 1471 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as it is not necessary and will increase existing traffic problems and there is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends. It is recommended that a overpass / underpass is developed. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 144 Policy SC6 Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname McEvoy Company Reference F/1496/201/SC6/O 1496 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as it is not necessary and will increase existing traffic problems and there is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends. It is recommended that a overpass / underpass is developed, or make Lyelake Lane a cul-de-sac. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Pennington Company Reference F/1521/205/SC6/O 1521 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as it is not necessary and will increase existing traffic problems and there is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends. It is recommended that a overpass / underpass is developed. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Killeen & Company Reference F/1531/201/SC6/O 1531 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as it is not necessary and will increase existing traffic problems and there is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends. It is recommended that a overpass / underpass is developed. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 145 Policy SC6 Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Taylor Company Reference F/1584/203/SC6/O 1584 Objection There is no need for a junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as there will be a better junction at Four Lane Ends. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Banks Company Reference F/1714/202/SC6/O 1714 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as it is not necessary and will increase existing traffic problems and there is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends. It is recommended that a overpass / underpass is developed. Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Bates Company Reference F/2011/202/SC6/O 2011 Objection The junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass is not necessary as it will increase current traffic problems rather than reduce them. The would be a more suitable junction on Four Lane Ends where there should be an overpass or underpass instead of a junction. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 146 Policy SC6 Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Hooker Company Reference F/2129/201/SC6/O 2129 Objection The junction at Lyelake Lane/Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass is not necessary as there is already a perfectly good existing junction at 4 Lane Ends which could be adapted. This would also reduce the amount of traffic on the existing length of Lyelake Lane. (S) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Donnolly Company Reference F/2133/201/SC6/O 2133 Objection Object to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposal for Ormskirk Bypass as this will increase current traffic problems in the area, there should be underpass / overpass at this junction. (S) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname O'Donnell Company Lathom Parish Council Reference F/2195/203/SC6/O 2195 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as it is not necessary and will increase existing traffic problems and there is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends. It is recommended that a overpass / underpass is developed. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 147 Policy SC6 Ormskirk Bypass (SE section) Lyelake Lane /Lathom Road Surname Whitehead Company Reference F/2322/201/SC6/O 2322 Objection Objects to the junction at Lyelake Lane / Lathom Road within the proposed Ormskirk Bypass as it is not necessary and will increase existing traffic problems and there is an existing junction at Four Lane Ends. It is recommended that a overpass / underpass is developed. (F) Response The Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with in both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being identified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. Detailed designs for all aspects of the bypass, including exact details of the route and details of junctions will be part of any future planning application, which will be available for public consultation. The West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan only safeguards land for the future development of the bypass and it is not within the remit of the Plan to provide detailed design guidance on aspects of the route. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Ormskirk Bypass Surname Latham Company Reference F/1523/202/SC6/O 1523 Objection The Ormskirk Bypass will destroy vast areas of the countryside, too many concessions made been made for the motor car to the detriment of the environment. Congestion is caused by local people who live and work in Ormskirk. The Council should develop an integrated transport strategy, money should be spent on reinstating a rail line between Ormskirk - Burscough - Southport and not by destroying the local environment. (S) Response Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being indentified as the next major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. The Ormskirk Bypass is designed to relieve Ormskirk Town Centre of congestion and offer an alternative and more direct route for HGV's travelling from the M58 to Southport.

Policy SC7 of the Local Plan restricts development which would potentially prejudice the reinstatement of the Burscough Curves and the electrification of the rail line between Ormskirk and Burscough Bridge. This policy also relates to the future improvements to improved public transport facilities across the District. Recommendation No Change

Ormskirk Bypass Surname Coones Company Reference F/2226/202/SC6/O 2226 Objection Objects to the Ormskirk Bypass, the proposal is located too close to the town creating further congestion and pollution and will be further detriment to highway safety. Recommends the public transport system is improved, further cycleways are created and the Burscough Curves are re-opened. (S) Response Ormskirk Bypass is identified as a scheme with both the adopted and draft Structure Plan, as well as being indentified as the n ext major scheme in the County Council Local Transport Plan. The Ormskirk Bypass is designed to relieve Ormskirk Town Centre of congestion and offer an alternative and more direct route for HGV's travelling from the M58 to Southport.

Policy SC7 relates to the improvement of the public transport network throughout the District, including the development of bus/rail interchanges. Policy SC3 relates to the development of Linear Parks in the District, which would create multi-user footpaths for cyclists, pedestrians and horse-riding. Land at the Burscough Curves is safeguarded for the possible future re-instatement of the rail route, as indicated in policy SC7. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 148 Policy SC7 Policy: SC7 Public Transport Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/217/SC7/O 1111 Objection Additional text is supported, retains original concerns regarding the implementability of possible electrification to Southport. Passenger Rail Operations have been recently taken over by Northern. (S) Response Reference to the improvement of existing station facilities at Burscough Junction are made in points (4) and (13) of policy SC7. Improvements to both this facility and the electrification of the line from Ormskirk to Burscough are likely to be mentioned within the Merseytravel Local Transport Plan and the Lancashire Local Transport Plan. Recommendation No Change

Surname George Company West Lancs Green Party Reference F/2130/202/SC7/O 2130 Objection There is full support for the restoration of the railway interchange in Burscough, would request an updated estimate of the cost of development. The lack of rail-links into Skelmersdale should be a high priority for action. (S) Response Rail links into Skelmersdale will be considered as part of the visioning exercise which is currently underway for Skelmersdale town centre. Recommendation No Change

Burscough Burscough Junction Station Surname Company Persimmon Homes (NW) Ltd Reference F/1125/202/SC7/O 1125 Objection SC7.13 Burscough Junction Station should be omitted from policy SC7. The Burscough Junction Station does not accord with the provision of Policy 10 of the Joint Structure Plan. (S) Response Reference to the improvement of existing station facilities at Burscough Junction are made in points (4) and (13) of policy SC7. Improvements to both this facility and the electrification of the line from Ormskirk to Burscough are likely to be mentioned within the Merseytravel Local Transport Plan and the Lancashire Local Transport Plan. Recommendation No Change

Surname Oley Company Reference F/1133/201/SC7/O 1133 Objection A footbridge over the canal at the railway lines linking the towpath and the new housing development in Burscough should be included within this policy. Does the planning department consider public safety for pedestrians as part of applications? (F) Response It is not within the Remit of the Local Plan to propose and implement such a scheme. This would need to be addressed through Lancashire County Council and their Local Transport Plan. West Lancashire District Council is a member of the Lancashire Highways Partnership, but has no statutory powers to implement such a project. As part of the development of the former M.O.D. site, Burscough, access from the housing estate to Burscough centre was considered, including the potentiall for a footbridge across the canal. However, it was agreed that the developer should pay a commuted sum in order to provide a bus service from the housing development to the local centre. Policy GD1 xvii relates to new developments providing safe, convenient and attractive pedestrian links. Policy SC8 also deals with the protection of cycling and walking facilities. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F =full text) Page 149 Policy SC7 Downholland Surname Duffy Company Downholland Parish Plan Steering Group Reference F/2166/206/SC7/O 2166 Objection There are no references made to Downholland, and no direct links between Downholland and the proposed centres of service provision. (F) Response Although no reference is made to the area of Downholland within policy SC7 the main aim of the policy is to improve the public transport network across the District. The provision of public transport for remote rural areas is always problematical and the provision of schemes such as West Lancashire Dial-a-Ride are welcome sources of public transport to the rural areas of the District. Lancashire County Council provide subsidised bus services to some areas of deficiency in the District. Recommendation No Change

Skelmersdale Surname Coones Company Reference F/2226/201/SC7/O 2226 Objection Requests amendment to Policy SC7 to include the re-development of break-bulk facilities adjacent to the railway at either Mill Dam Lane, Burscough or at and the development of a station at Skelmersdale. (S) Response Policy SC7 relates to improvements to transport infrastructure in West Lancashire which could be developed within the Plan period. It is not considered that the development of break-bulk sites at Simonswood and Mill Dam Lane need to be specifically allocated within the Plan. Currently a visioning exercise is being conducted into the regeneration of Skelmersdale Town Centre, the development of a rail route into Skelmersdale will be considered as part of this exercise. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 150 Policy SC8 Policy: SC8 Cycling and Walking Facilities

Surname Hodson Company Reference F/1005/214/SC8/O 1005 Objection There needs to be provision in the policy to physically link with neighbouring authorities policies. All alternative modes of transport should be encouraged as an alternative to the car. (F) Response The linear park proposals at Banks and in Tarleton / Hesketh Bank will encourage the use of alternative forms of transport. Further consideration will be given in improving links in / around the Northern Parishes as part of the Regional Park proposal. Recommendation No Change

Surname Hodson Company Northern Parishes Public Transport Focus Reference F/1006/214/SC8/O 1006 Objection There needs to be provision in the policy to physically link with neighbouring authorities policies. All alternative modes of transport should be encouraged as an alternative to the car. (F) Response The linear park proposals at Banks and in Tarleton / Hesketh Bank will encourage the use of alternative forms of transport. Further consideration will be given in improving links in / around the Northern Parishes as part of the Regional Park proposal. Recommendation No Change

Surname Sears Company Tarleton Parish Council Reference F/1012/214/SC8/O 1012 Objection There needs to be provision in the policy to physically link with neighbouring authorities policies. (F) Response The linear park proposals at Banks and in Tarleton / Hesketh Bank will encourage the use of alternative forms of transport. Further consideration will be given in improving links in / around the Northern Parishes as part of the Regional Park proposal. Recommendation No Change

Surname Ashcroft Company Tarleton Village Design (TVDG) Reference F/1013/201/SC8/O 1013 Objection Supports the improvements to cycling / walking facilities, recommends that there is provision in the policy to physically link with neighbouring authorities policies (F) Response The linear park proposals at Banks and in Tarleton / Hesketh Bank will encourage the use of alternative forms of transport. Further consideration will be given in improving links in / around the Northern Parishes as part of the Regional Park proposal. Recommendation No Change

Surname Draper Company Reference F/1024/205/SC8/O 1024 Objection No reference made to seek links to PROW network around Banks, the Plan should include these links, including Ralph Wife's Lane - Water Lane, Bank Pace - Sea Embankment, Charnleys Lane - Sea Embankment. (S) Response The linear park proposals at Banks and in Tarleton / Hesketh Bank will encourage the use of alternative forms of transport. Further consideration will be given in improving links in / around the Northern Parishes as part of the Regional Park proposal. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 151 Policy SC8 Surname Simpson Company Reference F/2116/215/SC8/O 2116 Objection General support for the policy but recommends that there is provision in the policy to physically link with neighbouring authorities. (S) Response The linear park proposals at Banks and in Tarleton / Hesketh Bank will encourage the use of alternative forms of transport. Further consideration will be given in improving links in / around the Northern Parishes as part of the Regional Park proposal. Recommendation No Change

Surname George Company West Lancs Green Party Reference F/2130/203/SC8/O 2130 Objection There is lack of cycling facilities within the district (S) Response A number of policies relate to the improvements to the cycling network across West Lancashire. Policy SC3 relates to the development of linear parks (multi user routes for walking, cycling and horse-riding) in three locations in the district. Policy SC8 which directly relates to cycling and walking facilities, states that one of the Plans aims is to increase the proportion of journeys made by cycling and walking. Away from the Local the District Council have an adopted Cycling Strategy and carried out a cycling study of Skelmersdale from which a number of schemes to improve cycling facilities in the area have been implemented. Future studies will be commissioned into the development of a multi-user route between Ormskirk and Skelmersdale and to make Ormskirk more accessible to cyclists. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 152 Policy SC9 Policy: SC9 Infrastructure, Services and Utilities Surname Company National Grid Transco Reference F/1023/201/SC9/O 1023 Objection National Grid Transco requests that provision be made within the Plan for the operational needs of utility companies throughout the plan area. This could most appropriately be undertaken by an insertion in Policy SC9 as follows: "The Council will seek to ensure appropriate land and buildings are available to meet the operational needs of utility companies and statutory undertakers." (F) Response The first paragraph of the policy, in particular the phrase, "in order to maintain ... an existing service" positively allows for the operational needs of utility companies to be met. Finding specific appropriate land and/or buildings to meet operational needs is an exercise more suitably carried out by the utility companies themselves rather than by the local planning authority. Recommendation No Change

Surname Hardman Company United Utilities Reference F/1169/202/SC9/O 1169 Objection United Utilities would like a similar statement to the fourth paragraph of this policy statement: "Development should be limited to locations where adequate infrastructure services are available or where it can be proved that there is a plan to make the infrastructure available." (S) Response The second paragraph of EN8 limits development to areas where adequate infrastructure services are available, or will be made available in time to serve the development proposed. The requirement that "it can be proved there is a plan to make the infrastructure available" is implicit in the phrase "will be made available in time to serve the development proposed". Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 153 Policy SC10 Policy: SC10 Telecommunications Surname Rusbridge Company English Nature Reference F/1085/220/SC10/O 1085 Objection No significant changes have been made to this policy to safeguard nature conservation. Policy SC10 should be amended to ensure that any proposals for telecommunications have regard to protecting the existing nature conservation interests, including protected species. (S) Response Policy EN1 deals with impacts on nature conservation. It is not necessary to repeat criteria throughout the Plan. Recommendation No Change

Surname Grimshaw Company Lancashire County Council Reference F/1111/219/SC10/O 1111 Objection The wording of point no. (ii) is in need of some amendment for clarity: (ii) It does not have an unacceptable impact on the character, setting or appearance of a Conservation Area, a Listed Building, a historic park or garden, an archaeological site or the setting of a settlement." (F) Response Amend criterion no. (ii) as recommended, for greater clarity, subject to a small number of minor changes: "(ii) It does not have an unacceptable impact on the character, setting or appearance of a Conservation Area, Listed Building, historic park or garden, or archaeological site, or on the setting of a settlement." Recommendation Change

Surname Company Mono Consultants Ltd Reference F/1127/201/SC10/O 1127 Objection Changes made to the policy are welcomed, except in the case of Green Belts. The revised policy does not take into account openness. A rewording more in line with PPG8 is suggested: "Where development is proposed in the Green Belt, it is important that openness is maintained. If this is not the case, then development is likely to be inappropriate. In these instances, the applicant will be expected to demonstrate that special circumstances exist." (S) Response Change the paragraph on the Green Belt to read: "Where development is proposed in the Green Belt, it is likely to be inappropriate unless openness is maintained. In the case of inappropriate development, the applicant will be expected to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist, and that there are no suitable alternative sites in a non-Green Belt location." Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Hubbard Company The National Trust Reference F/1128/207/SC10/O 1128 Objection The National Trust welcomes the changes to Policy SC10. However, complementary changes are also needed to paragraph 6.58. Amend paragraph 6.58 to read: "Special issues arise in relation to conservation areas, listed buildings, Historic Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings." (F) Response Add in extra phrase relating to Historic Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings, as suggested, to paragraph 6.58. Recommendation Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 154 Policy SC10 Surname Powell Company Reference F/1912/204/SC10/O 1912 Objection Reference is made to siting telecommunications masts away from schools. The protection of residential areas, where children and their families reside is an equally important consideration. This should be strongly reflected in Policy SC10. (S) Response SC10 covers both schools and residential areas, but reflects PPG8 in making specific reference to schools. PPG8 states that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications, but whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts, and that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. PPG8 does not permit local planning authorities to implement their own precautionary policies beyond those proposed by the Government, e.g. by insisting on a minimum distance between new telecoms development and existing [residential] development. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 155 Policy SC11 Policy: SC11 Renewable Energy Surname Rusbridge Company English Nature Reference F/1085/221/SC11/O 1085 Objection Policy stance of 'will be approved' is inappropriate and the criteria not comprehensive, furthermore the policies should avoid raising expectations by containing phrases such as 'will be approved' which are then followed by criteria so stringent that they are impossible to achieve. The policy should be redrafted to contain recommended text (see form). In addition, there should be provision for restoration when a scheme becomes redundant. (S) Response Policy justification for policy SC11 makes reference to the protection of flora and fauna when considering renewable energy projects. The key principles of PPS22 (Renewable Energy) state that local development documents should set out policies designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, renewable energy sources. Recommendation No Change

Surname Company Future Energy Solutions Reference F/1643/201/SC11/O 1643 Objection Recommends that policy SC11 should be amended at various points to reflect more updated guidance in PPS22 and government targets. (S) Response It is acknowledged that further detail will be required in terms of criteria used for judging planning applications and the requirement of % of new development to use renewable energy. However, it is considered that this information would be better provided in a future SPD as part of a Local Development Framework. Recommend that paras 6.60 & 6.61 be amended as requested to reflect the publication of PPS22. Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Carter Company Renewables Northwest Reference F/1907/201/SC11/O 1907 Objection Policies should follow PPS22 and Policy ER15 of RPG13 in promoting and encouraging the development of renewable energy resources, rather than containing negative undertones. Current SC11 lacks detail and has potential for ambiguity. There is no specific guidance against which planning decisions can be made, which could lead to subjective and inconsistent decisions. There should be a policy to require a percentage of energy used in new residential, commercial or industrial development to come from on-site renewable energy developments. There should be reference to climate change and the national goal to cut CO2 emissions within the supporting text. (S) Response Its acknowledged that further detail will be required in terms of criteria used for judging planning applications and the requirement of % of new development to use renewable energy. However, it is considered that this information would be better provided in a future SPD as part of a Local Development Framework. Recommendation No Change

Surname Adderley Company British Wind Energy Association Reference F/2274/201/SC11/O 2274 Objection Although supportive of policy SC11 in principle the policy lacks detail and should be expanded to include key criteria to judge planning applications. The policy should also include references to the percentage of new development that should use renewable energy. Also recommends some minor rewording within the justification of the policy. (S) Response Its acknowledged that further detail will be required in terms of criteria used for judging planning applications and the requirement of % of new development to use renewable energy. However, it is considered that this information would be better provided in a future SPD as part of a Local Development Framework. Recommend that para 6.61 be amended as requested to reflect the publication of PPS22. Recommendation Partial Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 156 Policy SC12 Policy: SC12 Cemeteries and Crematoria

Surname Powell Company Reference F/1912/203/SC12/O 1912 Objection The maintenance of St Stephens Churchyard should be funded directly from District Council. (S) Response Policy SC12 relates to the proposed development of new cemeteries and crematoria in the District. It is not within the remit of the Local Development Plan to consider the proposed maintenance of existing cemeteries, this service may be provided through the grounds maintenance section of the District Council. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 157 Policy APPA Policy: APPA Appendix A Surname Rusbridge Company English Nature Reference F/1085/216/APPA/O 1085 Objection Whilst some quantitative targets are set out for the Environment, these do not relate to nature conservation and the protection of species / habitats in West Lancashire. The environmental targets should relate to targets set out in the local BAP. English Nature advise that a 'no net loss' target is set relating to protected sites / species. English Nature also advocate the inclusion of a target relating to the designation of Local Nature Reserves. (F) Response Add to Appendix A a target of 'no net loss' of protected sites (i.e. nature conservation sites designated under Policy EN1). (Partial change) The Council do not consider that the measurement of 'no net loss' in terms of species is feasible on a regular basis. (No change) Designation of local nature reserves (as opposed to their protection once designated) is not a function of the Plan, and therefore the Council considers that such a target is not appropriate. (Refer also to response to F/1085/208/EN1/O.) (No change) Recommendation Partial Change

Surname Clayton Company South Lathom Residents Association Reference F/1152/201/APPA/O 1152 Objection (2 forms) Form 1 The targets are unambitious. To be meaningful, they need to state the degree of improvement sought and they should set milestones, rather than simply aim at the end of the Plan period. Set quantified improvement targets showing ambition to attain real and meaningful improvements, with improvement milestones so that annual monitoring allows changes to be put in place for achieving the targets set. Form 2 The target for development of economic land is unnecessarily high. Set a target that is realistic, addressing the current unemployment situation, and providing for the re-use of redundant sites. Re-develop existing areas in good time to meet demands for premises on sites adjacent to the motorway, rail and canal links, thus avoiding the movements of HGVs through rural / residential areas. (S)

Response (1) Guidance on indicators and targets advises against setting over-ambitious targets. Rather, targets are to be achievable and based on firm evidence, e.g. performance over recent years. Planning guidance requires that indicators be measured annually and assessed against their targets. If targets are not met, the Annual Monitoring Report must specify what action requires to be taken to meet targets. If performance improves, more ambitious targets can be set, provided they remain achievable. (2) The target for development of business and industrial land is based on past performance, and is thus considered to be realistic. (See (1) above). Other Plan policies support the redevelopment of redundant sites, where appropriate. Recommendation No Change

Surname Clayton Company Reference F/1294/208/APPA/O 1294 Objection RPG13 Policy ER6 supports the increasing of tree cover in the North West by 10% by 2010 and by at least 15% by 2020. This target should be reflected in Appendix A. (S) Response The RSS target, referred to in paragraph 4.47 (Policy EN9), does not imply that every council area's tree cover must increase by 10%. For this reason, it is not considered appropriate to include a target to increase in tree coverage by 10% within Appendix 1. Recommendation No Change

(S=summarised; F=full text) Page 158