7. Planning Committee

AGENDA ITEM: 7.

PLANNING COMMITTEE: 4TH SEPTEMBER 2014

Report of: Assistant Director Planning

Relevant Head of Service: Managing Director (Transformation)

Contact for further information: Mrs.C.Thomas (Extn. 5134) (E-mail:[email protected])

SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Background Papers

In accordance with Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 the background papers used in the compilation of reports relating to planning applications are listed within the text of each report and are available for inspection in the Planning Division, except for such documents as contain exempt or confidential information defined in Schedule 12A of the Act.

Equality Impact Assessment

There is no evidence from an initial assessment of an adverse impact on equality in relation to the equality target groups. CONTENT SHEET

Report Ward Application Site Location & Recommendation No. No Proposal

1 Aughton And 2014/0495/WL3 129 Whalley Drive Planning Downholland Aughton Ormskirk permission be Lancashire L39 6RE granted.

Single storey side extension.

2 Ashurst 2013/1293/FUL West Haven Elmers Planning Green Lane permission be Skelmersdale granted. Lancashire WN8 6SJ

Redevelopment of land/garden to accommodate 4No additional detached dwellings. New vehicular access road off Fosters Green Road and new vehicular access/drive off Elmers Green Lane.

3 Ashurst 2014/0584/WL3 Communal Areas Planning Marlborough Court permission be Skelmersdale granted. Lancashire

Construction of 3 stop internal lift shaft for disabled access within existing stairwell and alterations to the roofline to accommodate lift equipment. Report Ward Application Site Location & Recommendation No. No Proposal

4 Ashurst 2014/0697/WL3 54 Larkhill Planning Skelmersdale permission be Lancashire WN8 6TF granted.

Single storey rear extension. 5 Ashurst 2014/0707/WL3 14 Leeswood Planning Skelmersdale permission be Lancashire WN8 6TH granted.

Single storey rear extension.

6 Bickerstaffe 2014/0542/FUL Land Adjacent To Planning Entrance Road permission be Simonswood Industrial granted. Park Stopgate Lane Simonswood Lancashire

Development of a single wind turbine generator with a maximum height to blade tip of 102 metres above ground level, vehicle access tracks, crane pad, sub-station building and construction compound. Report Ward Application Site Location &Recommendation No. No Proposal

7 Derby 2014/0556/FUL Ropers Arms 52 Wigan Planning Road Ormskirk permission be Lancashire L39 2AU refused.

Change of use of former public house to convenience store and offices including rear extension to accommodate food retail on ground floor with offices on first and second floors. Construction of a three bed detached dwelling including new vehicular/pedestrian access. 8 Hesketh- 2013/1258/OUT Henry Alty Ltd Station The decision to with- Road Hesketh Bank grant planning Becconsall Preston Lancashire permission be PR4 6SP delegated to the Assistant Director Outline - Residential Planning in development across consultation with two phases, including the Chairman or associated garages, Vice Chairman of roads, landscaping and the Planning public realm creation in Committee the form of a linear subject to a park and B1 planning employment uses. obligation under Details of access Section 106 of the included. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 being entered into. Report Ward Application Site Location &Recommendation No. No Proposal

9 Moorside 2014/0696/WL3 79 Birleywood Planning Skelmersdale permission be Lancashire WN8 9BS granted.

Single storey rear extension.

10 Scarisbrick 2014/0699/WL3 25 Rimmer Green Planning Scarisbrick Southport permission be Lancashire PR8 5LP granted.

Single storey rear/side extension.

11 Tanhouse 2014/0442/WL3 Communal Areas Planning Evenwood Court permission be Tanhouse granted. Skelmersdale Lancashire

Construction of 2 stop internal lift shaft for disabled access requiring extension to first floor to accommodate diverted internal staircase. Construction of ground floor extension to bin room to rear of new shaft. Report Ward Application Site Location &Recommendation No. No Proposal

12 Up 2014/0593/FUL Lancashire Manor Planning Holland Hotel Prescott Road permission be East Pimbo Up granted. Holland Skelmersdale Lancashire WN8 9QD

Erection of a two storey rectangular block extension to the hotel on its southern elevation. It will be located on an existing car parking area and will adjoin the existing building via a small link leading to the main two storey extension that will stretch eastwards (towards Chequer Lane). The extension will provide 24 no. ensuite bedrooms. Report Ward Application Site Location &Recommendation No. No Proposal

13 Up 2014/0594/LBC Lancashire Manor Listed Building Holland Hotel Prescott Road Consent be East Pimbo Up granted. Holland Skelmersdale Lancashire WN8 9QD

Listed Building Consent - Erection of a two storey rectangular block extension to the hotel on its southern elevation. It will be located on an existing car parking area and will adjoin the existing building via a small link leading to the main two storey extension that will stretch eastwards (towards Chequer Lane). The extension will provide 24 no, ensuite bedrooms. No.1 APPLICATION 2014/0495/WL3 NO. LOCATION 129 Whalley Drive Aughton Ormskirk Lancashire L39 6RE

PROPOSAL Single storey side extension. APPLICANT West Lancashire Borough Council WARD Aughton And Downholland PARISH Aughton TARGET DATE 30th July 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 None

2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

2.1 AUGHTON PARISH COUNCIL (14/07/14) - No comments.

2.2 ESTATES DEPARTMENT, HOUSING AND REGENERATION, WEST LANCASHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL (27/06/14) - No objections.

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 None

4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

4.1 None

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

5.1 The application site is located within the settlement area of Aughton as designated in the West Lancashire Local Plan Proposal Map.

5.2 Relevant planning policies include:

West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development Supplementary Planning Document – Design Guide (January 2008)

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Requiring Good Design

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

Site

6.1 The application site relates to a two storey semi-detached property located on the western side of Whalley Drive in Aughton.

Proposal

6.2 This application seeks planning permission for a single storey side extension to accommodate a ground floor bedroom and bathroom. A flat roofed extension already exists on the same site and the proposal would replace this with a larger extension.

Assessment

6.3 The main considerations for this application are

i) Visual appearance/design ii) Impact on neighbouring properties iii) Impact on highways/parking

Visual appearance/design

6.4 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan DPD 2012-2027 states that in the case of extensions, conversions or alterations to existing buildings, the proposal should relate to the existing building, in terms of design and materials and should not detract from the character of the street scene, and Policy EN4 expects development to be high quality and in keeping with the West Lancashire Design Guide SPD.

6.5 The side extension will project 4.5m from the side wall of the existing property at its widest point, but this would be set in towards the front to 3.5m, allowing access to the rear of the property. It will be set back from the front elevation of the host property and would project beyond the rear by approx. 2m. A pitched and part-hipped roof would cover the extension. The materials from which the extension will be constructed will match those of the host property. 6.6 I am satisfied that the external design and appearance of the proposed extension reflects the character of the existing house and will not form an incongruous feature within the streetscene. In my view the proposal would improve the appearance of the existing extension which is currently flat-roofed in design and therefore does not relate well to the host property in terms of design or materials.

Impact on neighbouring properties

6.7 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan DPD (2012-2027) states that new development should retain reasonable levels of amenity for occupiers of neighbouring properties.

6.8 The nearest neighbour to the development is no.131 Whalley Drive, located to the north of the application site. This dwelling has two windows at ground floor level, facing the application site. Due to the scale, position of the property and inclusion of a part-hipped roof design, I am of the opinion that the development will not have an overbearing impact upon the occupants of this property, nor cause a detrimental impact in terms of poor outlook or loss of light.

6.9 The side elevation of the extension adjacent to this property will display a window to the bathroom which will be obscure glazed. This will serve to maintain the privacy of no.131.

Impact on Highways/parking

6.10 The proposal would not increase the number of bedrooms within the dwelling and therefore would not change the parking requirements beyond the existing. It is felt that sufficient parking can be provided within the existing curtilage.

Summary

6.7 Overall I consider that the proposed side extension is acceptable in terms of its design and would not have a significant detrimental impact upon neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, poor outlook or loss of light. Given the above I consider that the proposal satisfactorily meets the requirements of Policies GN1 and GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and should be recommended for approval.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with details shown on the following plans:- Plan reference DG- 10, DG-11 and DG-13 received by the Local Planning Authority on 14 May 2014.

GN1 Settlement Boundaries GN3 Criteria for Sustainable Development

PROPOSAL Redevelopment of land/garden to accommodate 4No additional detached dwellings. New vehicular access road off Fosters Green Road and new vehicular access/drive off Elmers Green Lane. APPLICANT UKI Express Transport Ltd WARD Ashurst PARISH Unparished - Skelmersdale TARGET DATE 2nd September 2014

1.0 REFERRAL

1.1 This application was to be determined under the Council's delegation scheme, however, Councillor Savage has requested it be referred to Committee to consider the impact on neighbouring amenity through loss of light.

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 2011/0287/OUT GRANTED Outline - Erection of three detached dwellings including details of access and layout.

2.2 2010/0367/OUT WITHDRAWN Outline - Erection of eight town houses

3.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

3.1 United Utilities (30.01.14) – No Objections; this site should be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to the soakaway/watercourse/surface water sewer

3.2 Lancashire Constabulary (28.01.14) No Objections; The layout meets with Secured By Design principles

3.3 LCC Highways (04.03.14) - No Objections in principle

On both previous applications the old disused field access on the southern boundary of the existing property was to be permanently closed with the use of a continuous wall to the front boundary. This access is located 5m from the junction of Fosters Green Road The plans submitted with this application indicate a new garage and driveway at this location. Due to the close proximity of this access to the junction of Fosters Green Road, advise that this former field access is closed. (Amended plans received to address this issue).

The floor plans indicate garages of 6x6m however scaled from the layout drawing (Dwg No 5089/2) the garages are less than this (5.4m). Clause F4.3 from the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan and Clause 8.3.41 from Manual for Streets recommend the minimum internal dimension for single garages to be 6x3m. Garages smaller than this should not be counted as parking spaces. Clarification of the garage size is required.

Adequate visibility can be achieved from the proposed new access road off Fosters Green Road.

3.4 Environmental Health (03.02.14) – No Objections – suggested conditions

3.5 Estates (27.01.14) – No Objections

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 A total of 10 neighbour representations have been received. A summary of the issues raised is as follows:

Overdevelopment Overshadowing - loss of sunlight Overlooking Loss of privacy Excessive height of dwellings on higher land levels Loss of wildlife habitat Loss of TPO trees Loss of a large garden Highway safety issues using the old field gate Electronically controlled gates are out of keeping with the area Surface water discharge concerns Overbearing due to the mass, bulk and proximity of the proposed dwelling to properties to the rear Depth of the proposed gardens fall short of the guidelines General boundary issues – relating to previous legal decision

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD provide the policy framework against which the development proposals will be assessed. The site is located within the settlement of Skelmersdale as designated in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD

West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD

SP1 – A Sustainable Development framework for West Lancashire GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 - Criteria for Sustainable Development RS1 - Residential Development IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choice EN2 - Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Natural Environment

Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design Guide’ (Jan.2008).

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

6.1 The application site is located to the west of Elmers Green Lane and adjacent to Fosters Green Lane. The site currently contains one detached dwelling and a number of outbuildings. The dwelling enjoys a large garden to the rear of the property and is located a significant distance from the northern site boundary and its nearest neighbour on Elmers Green Lane. The site is located within the main settlement area of Skelmersdale.

The Proposal

6.2 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of four detached dwellings and a new vehicular driveway off Elmers Green Lane.

6.3 Outline planning permission was granted in 2011 for the erection of three detached dwellings, including details of access and layout from Fosters Green Lane (2011/0287/OUT). The main difference between this scheme and the previously approved outline scheme is an additional dwelling increasing the proposed number of dwellings on site from three to four, in addition to the existing property, West Haven, which is to be retained. Plots 1-3 will be accessed via a single shared driveway from Fosters Green Road (details of which were approved under the previous scheme. Plot 4 and the existing property, West Haven will be accessed via individual private driveways from Elmers Green Road.

Principle of Development

6.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and policy RS1 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD accept the principle of residential development on this site as it is located within the settlement of Skelmersdale providing that the proposal is in accordance with other relevant policies. Design and External Appearance

6.5 The NPPF and policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD together with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Design require that development should be of a high quality design, integrate well with its surroundings, promote sustainable development principles and respect its setting.

6.6 The predominant design of dwellings facing onto Elmers Green Lane is that of detached two-storey properties, set approximately 5m apart. Within the surrounding area to the west and north west of the site, the character of the area remains residential but with a mixture of both detached and semi-detached dwellings. Therefore, detached dwellings in this location will not appear incongruous.

6.7 The proposed layout includes two house types which are similar to the house types in the immediate area. The design of the dwellings shows a consistent form utilising features common to the locality, in particular high ridges. Whilst the application site is set at a slightly higher level than the adjacent properties on Foxfold, it is not considered that the proposed height differences will result in a detrimental impact on the overall character and appearance of the surrounding area particularly when the proposed dwellings are set back from Fosters Green Road by 29m and will be screened by a dense tree cover surrounding the site, particularly along the frontage with Fosters Green Road. The amenity areas for all the proposed dwellings satisfy the standards prescribed by the Council in terms of rear garden depths (10m), whilst the existing property West Haven, falls short of this at 8m long, I am mindful there is an ample outdoor amenity space to the front and side of the property which will provide additional outdoor amenity space. Consequently, the provision of large detached dwellings in this locality is considered acceptable and the height, scale and layout arrangements of the proposed properties reflect the character and layout of the surrounding house types, as such I do not consider that this proposal will cause significant harm to the overall character of the area.

Impact on Residential Amenity

6.8 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027) DPD allows development provided it retains or creates reasonable levels of privacy, amenity and sufficient garden/outdoor space for occupiers of the neighbouring and proposed properties.

6.9 I have received a number of objections from neighbouring properties concerned about overlooking and overshadowing. With regards to plots 1-3, the distance between the principle rear elevations of the proposed properties and the principle rear elevations of the properties situated to the north of the site on Foxfold is between 24m and 26m. The distance between the flank elevation of plot 1 and the principle rear elevation of the properties to the west of the site on Foxfold is 13.5m. Both of these interface distances are considered to be acceptable and compliant with the Council’s guidance. Whilst the development site is on higher land levels than the properties to the west on Foxfold, I am mindful that the separation distances between the development and neighbouring properties exceeds that which is set out in the Councils guidance and I have taken into account the orientation of the properties in relation to the direction of the sun (east to west) and conclude that the proposed development will not be overbearing or result in adverse overshadowing issues. I acknowledge the concerns raised by local residents, however, I am satisfied that the proposed development will not result in adverse amenity impacts in relation to overlooking or overshadowing sufficient to warrant a refusal of planning permission as the separation distances exceed the Guidance set out with the Council’s SPD Design Guide.

6.10 The interface distances between the flank elevation of plot 3 and the rear elevations of plot 4 and West Haven varies between 10 and 12m, whilst these are below Council standards, I am mindful that the dwellings are somewhat off set from each other and as a result direct overlooking is clearly reduced by the oblique angle between the windows and I have taken into account and the fact that the design of the plot 3 ensures that there are no first floor side elevation windows. As such I am satisfied that a suitable relationship can be provided which will prevent any direct overlooking from habitable first floor windows or significant overshadowing issues.

6.11 With regards to plot 4, this will be situated 5m away from the adjacent number 195 Elmers Green Lane. No first floor side elevation principle windows are proposed on plot 4 as such I am satisfied that there would be no adverse loss of amenity to 195 Elmers Green Lane.

6.12 As such I am satisfied that acceptable separation distances can be achieved between the proposed and existing neighbouring properties. Therefore by reason of the design and siting of the proposed dwellings, I do not consider that there would be a detrimental loss of amenity in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy to occupiers of the neighbouring properties.

Highways

6.13 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan DPD 2012-2027 state that suitable and safe access, road layout, design and adequate parking provision are required. Each of the proposed dwellings will have access to at least three off street parking spaces, including integral garages which measure 6m by 3m. There is also sufficient space within the site in which vehicles can turn to enable them to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. 6.14 The applicant has shown that adequate sightlines can be achieved in respect of the access points of Fosters Green Road and Elmers Green Lane. The old disused field access on the southern boundary of the existing property, West Haven is to be permanently closed with the use of a continuous wall to the front boundary.

6.15 The Highway Authority have raised no objection to the proposed scheme providing that the disused field access is closed and the garages meet the minimum standards of 6m by 3m. Overall I am satisfied that the scheme is in accordance with the parking requirements outlined in Policy IF2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan.

Impact on Trees

6.16 Policy EN2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD states that development involving the loss of, or damage to trees of significant amenity and screening will only be permitted where the development is required to meet a need that could not be met elsewhere.

6.17 The site is subject to a of Tree Preservation Order (TPO), G2 tree group to the north west and G1 tree group to the south of the site. In terms of visual amenity, the siting of an access off Fosters Green Road will have an impact on the character of the area and will result in the loss of a number of trees to the south of the site in the G1 tree group. However the value of these trees individually is considered as being low and collectively there will remain a significant level of tree cover to ensure that the impact on the character of the area is minimal.

6.18 It is proposed to retain G2 tree group adjacent to the northern boundary fence to provide some screening to existing neighbouring properties. The other low grade trees in this group are shown for removal. The proposed layout of the dwellings has taken account of existing tree cover on the site and their root protection areas and has been sited / amended accordingly. The dwellings to the rear of the site are set well back from Fosters Green Road and the G1 and G2 grouping of trees which currently exists in that area. It is considered that the set back will ensure the proposed layout has no impact on these trees nor will they be significantly affected in terms of overshadowing from the tree canopies. The submitted arboricultural information is considered acceptable and has been agreed by the Council’s Arboricultural Officer.

Ecology

6.19 The European Community Directive 1992 requires the UK to maintain a system of strict protection for protected species and their habitats. The Directive only allows disturbance or deterioration, or destruction to breeding sites or nesting places (i) in the interest of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, and (ii) provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and (iii) no detriment caused to the maintenance of the species population at favourable conservation status in their natural range.

6.20 The main ecological issues arising from the proposal include potential impacts on bats, and hedgehogs. The applicant has submitted an updated ecological scoping survey in order to provide evidence that the proposed development is in accordance with Policy EN2 (Biodiversity). The report identified that the existing house has potential to be used by crevice dwelling bats and the trees and hedgerows within the boundaries will provide foraging and commuting opportunities for bats. The habitat on site also offers potential for hedgehogs. Providing that the mitigation measures outlined in the submitted information are adhered to, the proposed development will have no adverse impact on biodiversity or protected species on this site. A condition has been attached to ensure that the development must continue in accordance with the outlined measures.

Land Ownership

6.21 The matter of land ownership is not a material planning consideration. The submitted information, in terms of the extent of the site boundaries and the service of relevant ownership certificates is considered acceptable and there is no evidence to suggest that the submitted information is incorrect or misleading.

Summary

6.22 In summary, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the NPPF, Policies GN1, GN3, RS1, EN2 and IF2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions

Conditions 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with details shown on the following plans:- Plan reference Location Plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 12th December 2014. Plan reference 5089/1 and 5089/10 (House Type 3 only) received by the Local Planning Authority on 2nd December 2014. Plan reference 5089/2 Amendment D, 5089/16, 5089/15 and Tree Constraints Plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 8th July 2014. 3. No construction work shall take place until full details and samples of the external brickwork and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4. No construction work shall take place until full details of the finished levels of all parts of the site, including the floor levels of all buildings, are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with those details 5. No development shall take place until a scheme for the foul and surface water drainage of the development, including any necessary attenuation measures, has been fully agreed with the relevant statutory body/bodies, and until written evidence of that agreement has been provided to and acknowledged in writing as acceptable by the Local Planning Authority. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) or any subsequent Orders or statutory provision re-enacting the provisions of these Orders no garages, extensions, alterations, porches, garden sheds, out buildings, greenhouses, swimming pools, hardstandings or means of enclosure shall be erected or undertaken without the express written permission of the Local Planning Authority. 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) or any subsequent Orders or statutory provision re-enacting the provisions of these Orders, the garage shall be maintained as such and shall not be converted to or used for living accommodation without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 8. No contruction work shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall show the location, branch spread, and species of all existing trees and hedges; the location, species and number of all proposed trees, shrubs and hedges; and the location of all existing and proposed grassed and hard surfaced areas. Trees and shrubs planted shall comply with BS. 3936(Specification of Nursery Stock) and shall be planted in accordance with BS. 4428 (General Landscape Operations). Within a period of 9 months from the date when any part of the development is brought into use the approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out. All planting shall be maintained and dead or dying material shall be replaced for a period of seven years from the agreed date of planting. 9. No construction work shall take place until details of the proposed boundary treatments for the site have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These agreed boundary treatments shall be maintained as such throughout the duration of the development. 10. The measures contained within the Arboricultural Report with Tree Constraints Plan, Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement (and the updated Tree Protection Plan referred to in condition number 11) as received on 12th August 2014 shall be fully implemented during construction. 11. Notwithstanding the submitted Tree Protection Plan, no development shall take place until an updated Tree Protection Plan is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing how all trees being retained within or adjacent to the application site will be adequately protected during and after construction. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. 12. Development that would disturb Bats and nesting birds should be avoided during the roosting/breeding/nesting season (March to August inclusive). If works do need to be carried out during this period, then a confirming survey of the site should be undertaken and the results submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site. 13. The precautions and mitigation measures contained in part 10 and Appendix II of the Updated Ecological Scoping Survey received 14th January 2014 shall be implemented in full throughout the duration of the development. If the presence of bats (or other protected species) is detected or suspected at any stage before, or during, the proposed works the works should cease and advice be sought regarding the need for a licence from Natural England. 14. Before the access is used for vehicular purposes, any gateposts erected at the access on to Elmers Green Lane shall be positioned 5m behind the nearside edge of the footway/carriageway and visibility splay fences or walls shall be erected from the gateposts to the existing highway boundary, such splays shall be 45 degrees to the centre line of the access. The gates shall open away from the highway. Should the access remain un-gated, 45 degree splays shall be provided between the highway boundary and points on either side of the drive measured 5m back from the nearside edge of the carriageway. 15. There shall be no direct pedestrian access and vehicular access from the existing southern gated access to the site and Elmers Green Lane and to that end a continuous wall or fence shall be erected before the dwellings are occupied and be permanently maintained on the highway boundary, all vehicular and pedestrian access being obtained from the northern access on to Elmers Green Lane or Fosters Green Road. The existing footway and kerbing of the vehicular crossing shall be reinstated in accordance with the Lancashire County Council Specification for Construction of Estate Road. 16. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 there shall not at any time in connection with that part of the development fronting onto Foster Green Road hereby permitted be erected or planted or allowed to remain upon the land hereinafter defined any building, wall, fence, hedge, tree, shrub or other device. The visibility splays to the subject of this condition shall be that land in front of a line drawn from a point 2.0m measured along the centre line of the proposed road from the continuation of the nearer edge of the carriageway of Fosters Green Road to points measured 43m in each direction along the nearer edge of the carriageway of Fosters Green Road, from the centre line of the access, and shall be constructed and maintained at footway/verge level in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Highway Authority. 17. Before the first dwelling is occupied, the new access between the site and Fosters Green Road shall be constructed in accordance with the Lancashire County Council Specification for Construction of Estate Roads to at least base level before any development takes place within the site. 18. Prior to commencement of any part of the development hereby approved, including site clearance, ground preparation, or drainage works, a facility shall be provided by which the wheels of all vehicles leaving the site can be cleaned. The wheels of all vehicles leaving the site during all stages of implementation shall be cleaned so that they do not carry any mud, soil, grit or other such materials onto the public highway. 19. No construction work shall take place until a scheme for the construction of the site access and the off-site works of highway improvement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 20. No construction work shall commence until full details of the proposed materials used for the surfacing of the access, and parking areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the hard surface shall be made of porous materials, or provision shall be made to direct run off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the site. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 21. No development shall take place until a scheme indicating the position of the proposed service runs, including their relationship to trees and Root Protection Areas, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall be implemented in accordance with these details. The agreement and location of service runs that have been identified to be in a Root Protection Area shall require a Method Statement detailing the method of installation. Such scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 22. No development shall take place until details are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing the special measures for the construction of the driveway. The driveway shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details. 23. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) or any subsequent Orders or statutory provision re-enacting the provisions of these Orders no window shall be added to Plots 1, 3 or 4 until details of the positioning, size and design have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 3. To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory and that the development therefore complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 4. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document.

5. To ensure that the site is properly drained in the interest of local amenity and that the development, therefore, complies with the provisions of Policies GN3 & IF3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 6. To safeguard the amenity of adjacent properties and the area generally and so comply with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document.

7. To allow for vehicles visiting the site to be parked clear of the highway and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policies GN3 & IF2 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 8. To assimilate the proposed development into its surroundings and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy EN2 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 9. To prevent unsightliness and visual intrusion and so ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 10. To assimilate the proposed development into its surroundings and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy EN2 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 11. To protect the trees and shrubs and thereby retain the character of the site and the area and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policies GN3 & EN2 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 12. To safeguard a protected species and so ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy EN2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 13. To safeguard a protected species and so ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy EN2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 14. To permit vehicles to pull clear of the carriageway when entering the site and to assist visibility and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 15. To limit the number of access points to the highway network as an aid to road safety 16. To permit vehicles to pull clear of the carriageway when entering the site and to assist visibility and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 17. To ensure that satisfactory access is provided to the site before the development herby permitted becomes operative. 18. To avoid the possibility of the public highway being affected by the deposit of mud and/or loose materials thus creating a potential hazard for road users and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 19. In order to satisfy the Local Planning Authority and Highway Authority the final details of the highway scheme/works are acceptable before work commences on site and to enable all construction traffic to enter and leave the premises in a safe manner without causing a hazard to other road users. 20. To ensure that the materials are permeable and water can soak into the ground and thereby comply with Policy GN3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012- 2027 DPD . 21. To protect the trees and shrubs and thereby retain the character of the site and the area and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policies GN3 & EN2 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 22. To protect the trees and shrubs and thereby retain the character of the site and the area and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policies GN3 & EN2 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 23. To protect the privacy of adjacent residential properties and so comply with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document.

Reason for Approval 1. The Local Planning Authority has considered the proposed development in the context of the Development Plan including, in particular, the following Policy/Policies in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document: SP1 – A Sustainable Development framework for West Lancashire GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 - Criteria for Sustainable Development RS1 - Residential Development IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choice EN2 - Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Natural Environment together with Supplementary Planning Guidance and all relevant material considerations. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal complies with the relevant Policy criteria and is acceptable in the context of all relevant material considerations as set out in the Officer's Report. This report can be viewed or a copy provided on request to the Local Planning Authority. No.3 APPLICATION 2014/0584/WL3 NO. LOCATION Communal Areas Marlborough Court Skelmersdale Lancashire

PROPOSAL Construction of 3 stop internal lift shaft for disabled access within existing stairwell and alterations to the roofline to accommodate lift equipment. APPLICANT West Lancashire Borough Council WARD Ashurst PARISH Unparished - Skelmersdale TARGET DATE 3rd September 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 2010/0205/WL3 - Provision of mobility scooter store and additional parking area. GRANTED 23.04.2010

2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

2.1 WLBC Estates & Regeneration (16.07.14) – no objection

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 None received

4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

4.1 The site is located within the main settlement area of Skelmersdale in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

National Planning Policy Framework Requiring good design

West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027) DPD Policy GN1 – Settlement Boundaries Policy GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development

Supplementary Planning Document, Design Guide (Jan 2008) 5.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

5.1 The application site relates to an existing care home complex situated within the main settlement area of Skelmersdale.

The Proposal

5.2 Planning permission is sought for construction of 3 stop internal lift shaft for disabled access within existing stairwell and alterations to the roofline to accommodate the lift equipment.

5.3 The majority of the works are internal with the only external element of the proposal being the need to raise a part of the existing roofline to accommodate the installation of an internal lift shaft.

Assessment

5.4 The main considerations for the determination of this application are; Visual appearance / design / character of street scene. Impact upon neighbouring properties

Visual appearance / design

5.5 Policy GN3, criterion vi of the West Lancashire Local Plan states that where proposals involve extensions to existing buildings, its design should relate to the existing building, in terms of design and materials, and should not detract from the character of the street scene.

5.6 The proposed development relates to a part of the building located close to the eastern part of the wider site. The part of the building affected is set back from the main eastern elevation and has a lower ridge line than the remainder of the building. The proposed development would result in the ridge being raised to align with the remainder of the building. The elevation would remain set back from the main elevation. The location of the proposed development would result in it being largely screened from surrounding viewpoints as the part of the building affected faces towards the adjacent main road. Given the extent of the works proposed, I am satisfied that these limited views would not be adversely affected. As the proposed development would not extend beyond the existing ridge line, I am satisfied that the character and appearance of the host property would not be adversely affected. I consider the siting, scale and design of the proposed extension to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy GN3 in the WLLP in that respect. Impact upon neighbouring properties

5.7 Policy GN 3, criterion iii of the West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027) states that any development should retain reasonable levels of privacy, amenity and sufficient garden / outdoor space for occupiers of the neighbouring and proposed properties.

5.8 The part of the building affected is located approximately 65m from the closest neighbouring dwellings located within Larkhill to the east. I am satisfied that the scale, form and positioning of the proposed development would ensure that no significant loss of amenity is experienced by these neighbouring dwellings.

6.0 SUMMARY

6.1 I consider the proposed development is consistent with the requirements of Policy GN3 in the WLLP and advice within the Design Guide SPD.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Reasons 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3. To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory and that the development therefore complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. Reason for Approval 1. The Local Planning Authority has considered the proposed development in the context of the Development Plan including, in particular, the following Policy/Policies in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document:

Policy GN1 – Settlement Boundaries Policy GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development

PROPOSAL Single storey rear extension. APPLICANT West Lancashire Borough Council WARD Ashurst PARISH Unparished - Skelmersdale TARGET DATE 9th September 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 None

2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

2.1 Estates and Regeneration (17.07.14) - No objections

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Ashurst Tenants and Residents Association (19.07.14) No Objections

4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

4.1 None Received

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD provide the policy framework against which the development proposals will be assessed.

The site is located within the settlement of Skelmersdale as designated in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD

West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD

GN3 Criteria for Sustainable Development

Supplementary Planning Advice

SPD – Design Guide (January 2008) 6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

6.1 The application site is a semi-detached dwelling situated in the corner of a small cul-de-sac named Larkhill in Skelmersdale.

The Proposal

6.2 This application seeks planning permission for a single storey rear extension measuring approximately 4.7m by 5.2m with an eaves and ridge height of 2.2m and 3.5m.

Design and Appearance

6.3 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan DPD provides detailed criteria relating to the design and layout of development, in particular, development should relate well to the adjacent buildings, the area generally and the natural features of the site in terms of siting, scale, orientation, design, detailing, materials and residential amenity. The Council’s SPD Design Guide states that extensions should be subordinate in size, scale and mass to the original dwelling and should have, proportions and built form which relates to the character and appearance of the existing property.

6.4 The single storey extension will project out from the rear elevation by 5.2m and is stepped in from the adjoining neighbouring property, number 56 between 0.4 and 0.9m. The extension will have a hipped roof with a maximum height of 3.3m.

6.5 Overall, I am satisfied that the design and external appearance of the single storey rear extension is acceptable and relates well to the existing dwelling in terms of its scale, proportion, and appearance and will not have a detrimental impact upon the street scene due to its location to the rear of the property and is considered to be in accordance with policy GN3 and the SPD Design Guide.

Impact upon neighbouring properties

6.6 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD and the Council’s SPD Design Guide allows development provided it retains or creates reasonable levels of privacy and amenity for occupiers of the neighbouring properties.

6.8 In terms of the impact upon number 62, the proposed extension will be situated approximately 6m away from the existing conservatory at number 62. The proposed extension will be pulled in 1m away from the communal boundary which comprises of a 1.5m high fence with 0.5m high trellising above. I am mindful that the proposed roof will be hipped away from number 62 and on the north side, furthermore number 62 has a side garden which provides further outdoor amenity space. As a result I am of the view that the proposed extension will not have an adverse impact upon the occupants of number 62.

Summary

6.9 In summary, I consider that proposal will not have an adverse impact upon neighbouring properties and the design is considered to be acceptable. Therefore the proposal is in accordance with policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the SPD Design Guide.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions

Reasons 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. Reason for Approval 1. The Local Planning Authority has considered the proposed development in the context of the Development Plan including, in particular, the following Policy/Policies in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document:

GN3 Criteria for Sustainable Development

No.5 APPLICATION 2014/0707/WL3 NO. LOCATION 14 Leeswood Skelmersdale Lancashire WN8 6TH

PROPOSAL Single storey rear extension. APPLICANT West Lancashire Borough Council WARD Ashurst PARISH Unparished - Skelmersdale TARGET DATE 9th September 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 None

2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

2.1 Estates and Regeneration (17.07.14) - No objections

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 I have received two letters of objection from the adjoining property, main concerns are as follows:

Two ground floor windows on the side elevation will overlook our property and rear garden area and result in a loss of amenity/privacy as there is a low fence between the gardens

Results in a considerable loss of garden space for the applicant’s property The extension under utilises the large corner plot and creates dead, dark spaces within the home and garden

The kitchen/diner will be dark as the window in the dining end will look directly onto the garage wall, while the kitchen window will have a gloomy view blocked by the shed, wall of the extension and the communal fence.

Concern the roof tiles do not match the existing in colour and style. All soffits in the cul de sac are white- those proposed are black.

Bland design

4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

4.1 None Received

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD provide the policy framework against which the development proposals will be assessed.

The site is located within the settlement of Skelmersdale as designated in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD

West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD

GN3 Criteria for Sustainable Development

Supplementary Planning Advice

SPD – Design Guide (January 2008)

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

6.1 The application site is a semi-detached dwelling situated in a small cul-de-sac named Leeswood in Skelmersdale.

The Proposal

6.2 This application seeks planning permission for a single storey rear extension measuring approximately 5.1m by 6m with an eaves and ridge height of 2.5m and 3.5m. Design and Appearance

6.3 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan DPD provides detailed criteria relating to the design and layout of development, in particular, development should relate well to the adjacent buildings, the area generally and the natural features of the site in terms of siting, scale, orientation, design, detailing, materials and residential amenity. The Council’s SPD Design Guide states that extensions should be subordinate in size, scale and mass to the original dwelling and should have proportion and built form which relates to the character and appearance of the existing property.

6.4 The single storey extension will project out from the rear elevation by 6m and is stepped in from the adjoining neighbouring property, number 16 between 3m and 3.3m. As the extension has been stepped away from the adjoining neighbouring property, the proposed rear extension will project out beyond the existing side wall between 1m and 1.3m.

6.5 Although part of the rear extension will be visible from the front elevation, I am mindful that the proposal is single storey, is situated between the main dwelling and a detached garage and the property is set well back from the road. Overall, I am satisfied that the design and external appearance of the single storey rear extension is acceptable and relates well to the existing dwelling in terms of its scale, proportion, and appearance and will not have a detrimental impact upon the street scene and is considered to be in accordance with policy GN3 and the SPD Design Guide.

Impact upon neighbouring properties

6.7 As a general rule a single storey rear extension along a common boundary may begin to cause overshadowing if it projects outwards beyond the neighbours own building by more than 4m. Whilst the extension will project outwards by 6m, it has been stepped in from the adjoining neighbouring property, number 16, by between 3m and 3.3m which will offset the impact of the proposal on the adjoining number 16. On balance I am of the view that the proposed extension will not significantly reduce light to the occupants of number 16 or result in overshadowing due to the set back away from the common boundary by 3m- 3.3m. In terms of overlooking and privacy, there are two windows proposed on the side elevation facing the rear garden of number 16, presently there is a 1m high fence between the rear gardens of the application site and number 16. Subsequently the proposed windows will seriously overlook the immediate garden area of number 16 and result in an unreasonable loss of privacy. To overcome this issue, the applicant has agreed to accept a planning condition to replace the 1m high fence with a close boarded fence of at least 1.8m in height to remove the issue of overlooking. Accordingly the proposal is in accordance with policy GN3 and the SPD Design Guide. In terms of the impact upon number 12, the proposed extension will be screened by an existing detached garage. I note the concerns relating to materials, however a condition will be attached to ensure all materials used match the existing property in colour and shape.

Summary

6.8 In summary, subject to conditions, I consider that proposal will not have an adverse impact on the street scene and neighbouring properties and the design is considered to be acceptable. Therefore the proposal is in accordance with policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the SPD Design Guide.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions

Reasons 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 3. To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory and that the development therefore complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 4. To protect the privacy of adjacent residential properties and so comply with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document.

GN3 Criteria for Sustainable Development

PROPOSAL Development of a single wind turbine generator with a maximum height to blade tip of 102 metres above ground level, vehicle access tracks, crane pad, sub-station building and construction compound. APPLICANT Peel Energy WARD Bickerstaffe PARISH Simonswood TARGET DATE 4th August 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 2014/0011/SCR NOT EIA DEVELOPMENT - Screening Opinion - Erection of a 500kW wind turbine, associated access and electricity sub-station.

2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

2.1 Liverpool John Lennon Airport (20/6/14) – No objection.

2.2 Ministry of Defence (MOD) (12/4/14) - No objection.

2.3 NATS (17/6/14) - No safeguarding objection.`

2.4 Knowsley MBC (24/6/14) – No objections. Request 3 conditions are included on any planning approval relating to shadow flicker mitigation and monitoring and noise levels.

2.5 LCC Highways (8/7/14) – No objections.

2.6 Assistant Director Community Service (Environmental Health) - No objections subject to conditions.

2.7 LCC Ecology -

(30/7/14) - Barn Owls - I accept that the absence of barn owl records within 2km, and the limited number of records at greater distance, do suggest that a turbine in this location would pose a low risk only to barn owls. Bats - Although bat usage of this landscape might be expected to low, in the absence of surveys that establish bat usage of habitats and more accurately assess likely impacts on local populations and species, it will remain important to ensure that an appropriate buffer zone (50m from boundary habitats/ potential bat habitat to blade tips) can be maintained. Without knowing the precise model of turbine (i.e. hub height, blade length) or precisely where it would be located (given potential micrositing), West Lancashire Borough Council should probably err on the side of caution and ensure that a 50m buffer is maintained for any and all turbine models that might subsequently be selected and for any eventual micrositing.

2.8 Natural England -

(23/7/14) - Satisfied that our previous response requesting more information has now been satisfied.

(19/7/14) –

A desk-top survey is required which would inform whether survey effort would be required. With no desk-based study data, Natural England has no basis to advise that full winter survey was needed, and therefore what that should involve.

From the data provided it does seem that this current proposal is low risk. However due to limitations in survey and the proximity of a large roost within 1km we cannot advise no likely significant effect.

In support of the County Ecologist’s comments we also refer you to Technical Information Note 051: Bats and onshore wind turbines which advises, to minimise risk to bat populations, a 50 m buffer should be maintained around any feature (trees, hedges), into which no part of the turbine should intrude.

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Simonswood Parish Council (1/7/14) – Object to the application for the following reasons:

The height of the wind turbine is over 6 double decker buses (90ft) taller than wind turbines of the same capacity, suggesting this is not a suitable site if the turbine as it needs to be much higher to obtain its full capacity;

Ecological appraisal showing views from the site to North doesn't show the nearest dwelling (Wood House Farm) which we believe doesn't give an accurate representation of the area of which the site is situated.

3.2 I have received the following comments from Councillor Ray Halpin of Shevington ward within Knowsley MBC: Lack of consultation with local residents within the Shevington Ward. Noise levels as a result of moving blades. Loss of habitat. Possible loss of value of residential properties which may be affected by the installation of Wind turbines.

3.3 I have received 5 neighbour representations making the following comments:

Noise pollution – already suffer from nearby industrial estate; UK Noise Association recommends turbines are not sited within 1 mile of houses; Unsightly; Carbon dioxide released during maintenance of turbines; Kill birds; Lots of different birds in the area which will be destroyed; Small community being crushed by development; Health implications; Height is excessive in small parish of Simonswood; Impact upon wildlife.

3.4 I have received an objection from Merlyn’s Life-flight for Children which can be summarised as follows:

WLBC have failed to notify us of this application; Concerned about the attitude of the applicant and WLBC in relation to future safety of aircraft using this site; WLBC have totally disregarded views and concerns of local residents; Tall structures are to be avoided where possible at all times in relation to aircraft safety; Makes no difference if site only used once a year; Charity endeavor’s to assist in saving the lives of children; Do not agree with content of aviation document – it appears not to contain factual and vital information in relation to local risk assessment value in relation to high winds, stating the wrong direction of the prevailing wind or refers to red lights on the mast being adequate to stop collision from an aircraft; The last thing the charity wants is an incident that could have been avoided; No reason why this applicant should be allowed to compromise our future operations from this long established base by their motive of financial gain; Unacceptable impact upon Green Belt; Direct conflict with flight path of Pink Footed Geese. 4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

4.1 The applicant has submitted the following assessments and information in support of their application:

Planning Statement Wind Turbine Statement TV Impact Assessment Tree Survey/Topographical Survey Ecology Phase 1 Report Ornithological Survey and Assessment Noise Impact Assessment Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Heritage Statement Aviation Risk Assessment Access Report

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) and the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD provide the policy framework against which the development proposals will be assessed.

The site is located on land designated as ‘Protected Land’ within the WLLP. It also falls within Lancashire County Council’s Mineral Safeguarding Area and is an Allocated Waste Site. The following policies are therefore relevant: NPPF Requiring good design Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals

West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development EN1 – Low Carbon Development and Energy Infrastructure EN2 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Natural Environment EN4 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Cultural and Heritage Assets Supplementary Planning Document – Design Guide (January 2008) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Natural areas and areas of landscape history importance (Updated August 2007)

Lancashire Site Allocation and Development Management Policies Local Plan

M2 – Mineral Safeguarding Area WM2 – Allocated Waste Sites

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

The Site

6.1 The application site is located to the north of Simonswood Industrial Estate and to the south of Stopgate Lane. The site lies approximately 2.7km to the north of Kirkby and 4.7km to the south-east of Maghull. The site comprises of a field located to the east of the industrial estate. The wider area is mostly rural in nature however the proposed development site is directly adjacent to the existing industrial estate. The site is allocated as ‘Protected Land’ within the WLLP and is a Minerals Safeguarding Area and an Allocated Waste Site within Lancashire’s site allocation plan.

The Proposal

6.2 This application seeks planning permission to erect a single 500kw wind turbine up to 102 metres high to the blade tip. The proposed hub height is approximately 75 metres with three blades of up to 27m in length mounted on the hub, resulting in an overall height of 102m.

6.3 The proposal also includes the following:

A single storey substation with dimensions of 6m x 4.5m x 4.6m high. The location of the substation is yet to be confirmed but two alternative options are presented – option A would see the substation located to the north-west of the turbine, option B would be located to the west of the turbine;

A 4m wide access track off the industrial estate road;

A crane pad constructed from crushed stone and covering an area of 40m x 25m;

A temporary laydown and assembly area to the north of the turbine including a single storey portacabin (3m x 6m) for the duration for the construction works.

6.4 The proposed turbine is to be operational for 25 years after which it will be decommissioned, dismantled and removed from the site. Renewable Energy

6.5 The NPPF states that supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. Policy EN1 of the WLLP states that proposals for wind energy development should take into consideration any impact upon landscape character and value, the historic environment, residential amenity, aviation safety, any ecological impacts, impacts upon land resources along with any community benefits offered by the development.

6.6 Renewable energy is key to a low carbon future and West Lancashire has a role to play in meeting the UK’s target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020, as set out in the EU Renewable Energy Directive. A great diversity of renewable energy schemes will need to be developed at a wide variety of sites and locations, however this must be considered in balance with landscape sensitivity and the understanding that some locations lend themselves to wind turbines better than others. On this basis, proposals need to be assessed case by case, taking the location and landscape setting into consideration.

Protected Land 6.7 The application site is located on land designated as ‘Protected Land’. Policy GN1 of the WLLP states that development on Protected Land will only be permitted where it retains or enhances the rural character of the area, for example small scale, low intensity tourism and leisure uses, and forestry and horticulture related uses.

6.8 The proposed wind turbine does not constitute any of the accepted development categories listed within Policy GN1 in relation to Protected Land. However, whilst the turbine will introduce a tall columnar structure into this area, I do not consider that it will detract from the rural character sufficient to warrant a refusal of planning permission given that the site is seen against the backdrop of the existing industrial development and as such I consider the proposal to be acceptable.

Landscape and Visual Impact

6.9 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) sets out criteria for assessing cumulative landscape and visual impacts. In terms of cumulative impact, whilst there are no other turbines within close proximity to this site, there is currently an appeal pending for a 90m high turbine at Basford Farm which lies approximately 1.5km to the north-west of the application site. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has considered the cumulative impact of this proposed turbine, the Basford Farm turbine along with the consented Walkers turbine in Pimbo Industrial Estate. The assessment concludes that there would be no significant cumulative impact upon the landscape and visual amenity of the area.

6.10 The site lies within the Lancashire and Amounderness Plain National Character Landscape Area (NCLA) which contains other large structures, pylons and industrial features. The LVIA has assessed the impact upon this NCLA as being ‘not significant’. The site also falls within the Upland Type Mosses landscape character area, predominantly characterised by flat, raised mosslands with limited woodland, providing good wind velocity ideal for wind energy generation, Landscape Character Type 16 Mosslands and Local Landscape Area 16d Skelmersdale Mosses, which is characterised by an intensively farmed arable landscape with a number of small geometric woodlands. Again the LVIA has considered the impact of the proposed turbine upon these character areas to be ‘not significant’. The area is also defined within the ‘Landscape Sensitivity to wind energy in Lancashire’, (2005) as having a low sensitivity to wind energy development where small, medium and possibly large scale clusters of wind energy development may be acceptable. However, the Councils SPG Natural Areas and Areas of Landscape History Importance indicates that in general the introduction of tall, columnar constructions should be avoided within the Upland Type Mosses landscape character area.

6.11 The proposed turbine will be sited on a flat field adjacent to the Simonswood Industrial Estate and the site itself has a low landscape value given its urban fringe location. In some views there is little or no screening to help mitigate the short distance views or those of the turbine within the wider landscape. There is no doubt that the turbine will be a strong structure within the landscape, the height of the turbine and the movement of the blades would attract attention within the largely still and flat landscape.

6.12 However, the turbine would be viewed against the backdrop of the industrial development immediately behind it and the urban conurbation of Kirkby beyond. Approximately 500m to the west of the site, along the frontage of Stopgate Lane, lies Fredericks Dairies which constitutes a significant industrial building within this landscape. In the wider setting, the turbine would be seen against a mixed backdrop of intensive agricultural areas (including managed woodland blocks), urban rural fringe developments, industrial areas, motorways and transport corridors. Many of the urban fringe residential and industrial areas are surrounded by linear tree planting and mature trees and fragmented hedgerows of the area break up the agricultural landscape and in some circumstances existing trees and buildings would help screen direct views of the turbine. From many vantage points the turbine would be seen against the conurbations to the west and south, where there are a number of tall structures including large scale industrial container storage, warehousing, industrial chimneys, manufacturing buildings, electricity pylons, transmission lines and telecommunication towers. 6.13 When considering the low sensitivity of the site and its wider urban surroundings, I consider the location of the proposed turbine to be acceptable and its visual impact to be not so detrimental to warrant refusal of this application. Whilst the turbine will have a clear visual impact on the landscape, on balance I consider that the long term environmental benefits of the renewable energy created by the turbine outweighs the harm to the landscape and visual amenity of the area. It is therefore my view that although 102m tall, the turbine would not cause an unacceptable level of visual intrusion in this particular landscape.

Impact on Heritage Assets

6.14 The NPPF states that in determining planning applications Local Planning Authority’s should take account of; the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that heritage assets can make to sustainable communities; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

6.15 The significance of a heritage asset needs to be given weight to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be provided to its significance. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Where a proposal leads to less than substantial harm to a designated asset, this harm should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal.

6.16 Policy EN4 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD has a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and states that development will not be permitted that adversely affects listed buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM), a conservation area, a historic park or garden or archaeological remains.

6.17 As previously mentioned, in landscape terms the area lies within the Area of Landscape Character 3 identified as Upland type Mosses. The historic value of the landscape is centred on the former medieval Deer Park relating to Simonswood Hall which lies around 2km to the north west of the turbine site. The former deer park provides the focus for an area of landscape history recognised as being of local importance in the Areas of Landscape History SPG.

6.18 In relation to the historic environment, the proposed scale of the turbine and its location would result in clear and extensive views of it from parts of the surrounding area. However whilst noticeable, I would not necessarily regard the turbine as dominating the setting to any heritage assets nearby. Simonswood Hall, a Grade II* listed building, is the nearest asset and is now in part located in an urban setting being adjacent to the built up area of Kirkby. The submitted Heritage Assessment has considered the impact of the turbine upon this asset to be negligible.

6.19 In view of the above, I consider that the impacts on the heritage assets would be very limited. This is due to the topography of the area and the existing screening by buildings and vegetation. In this context I consider that the turbine will be unlikely to dominate views in or out from any of the higher graded heritage assets. Overall I do not consider that the turbine will conflict with the duty of the Local Planning Authority to have special regard to the desirability to preserve the historic settings of designated listed buildings as defined by Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Therefore as there would be no significant impact on the setting of any nearby heritage asset, paragraph 134 of the NPPF advises where a proposal leads to less than substantial harm, this should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal. Consequently I consider the proposed development to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy EN4 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD.

Noise

6.20 There are two sources of noise from wind turbines - the turbine blades passing through the air and noise from the gearbox, generator and other parts of the drive train. All sources are strongly affected by rotor speed. There is an increase in turbine noise level as wind speed increases. However background noise also increases with wind speed and at a faster rate. The difference between the noise of a wind turbine and the background noise is therefore liable to be greatest at low wind speeds provided that there is sufficient wind to operate the turbine. Wind turbines do not operate below the wind speed referred to as the cut-in speed (usually around 4- 5 metres per second) and above a set cut-out speed. Many modern turbines have a direct drive design, eliminating the use of a gearbox, so mechanical noise is normally no greater than the aerodynamic noise.

6.21 The most widely accepted document for wind farm noise assessment in the UK is the ETSU-R-97 – The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. The Institute of Acoustics’ working group published its Good Practice Guide in May 2013. It includes a number of important recommendations. The guide presents current good practice in the application of the ETSU-R-97 assessment methodology for all wind turbine developments above 50kW, reflecting the original principles within that guidance and the results of research and experience since its 1996 publication. It is current Government policy that this Good Practice Guide should be followed. An Environmental Noise Impact Assessment has been carried out in accordance with the guidance/established practice mentioned above.

6.22 From the noise report provided the EWT DW 54 500KW turbine produces its highest sound power level of 100.5 dB(A) at 10 m/s. This will result in The simplified 35 dB(A) criterion being met at the nearest noise sensitive receiver (garden curtilage) approximately 425m away (Wood House Farm). Therefore the proposed turbine would be sufficiently quiet at the nearest residential properties to meet the ETSU-R-97 guidance stated above.

Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound

6.23 With regard to effects of noise from wind turbines, the main effect depends on the listener’s reaction to what they may hear. There are no direct health effects from noise at the level of noise generated by wind turbines. It has been repeatedly shown by measurements of wind turbine noise undertaken in the UK, Denmark, Germany and the USA over the past decade, and accepted by experienced noise professionals, that the levels of infrasonic noise and vibration radiated from modern, upwind configuration wind turbines are at a very low level; so low that they lie below the threshold of perception, even for those people who are particularly sensitive to such noise, and even on an actual wind turbine site. In response to concerns that wind turbines emit infrasound and cause associated health problems, Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics and author of the Defra Report on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects, says: “I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines.”

Amplitude Modulation

6.24 The aerodynamic noise is amplitude modulated ("AM") i.e. its volume rises and falls as the turbine blades rotate. The noise is sometimes described as "blade swish". The phenomenon of AM was considered by the Noise Working Group when the limits defined in ETSU-R-97 were established. ETSU-R-97 recognises a potential for AM of up to 3 dBA (i.e. the noise level goes up and down by 3 dBA in each blade rotation) and ETSU-R-97 states that it takes such a degree of blade swish into account in the noise limits it recommends (recommendation 27 in the ETSU-R-97 summary). However the document does not include a specific penalty for AM, beyond a 2 dB(A) adjustment in setting the fixed noise limit for low wind speeds.

6.25 Whilst all the causes are not known, it appears that AM tends to occur under certain meteorological conditions and the limited evidence available suggests this effect is likely to be manifest at a minority of wind farms. Moreover, it is a highly technical area, which despite research by numerous investigators over the last 20 years; there is to date no universally accepted explanation as to the causes of AM or means to predict its occurrence. Indications of increased likelihood of occurrence of AM include excess wind shear and the close proximity of turbines to one another on wind farms, however this proposal is for a single turbine.

6.26 To conclude, in relation to the noise issue, subject to conditions, the scheme would comply with the relevant advice included in PPS22 and ETSU-R-97, the purpose of which is to seek to achieve the accommodation of wind energy projects in a landscape which includes residential properties.

Shadow Flicker

6.27 Under certain combinations of geographical position, time of day and year, the sun may pass behind the rotor of a wind turbine and cast a shadow. When blades rotate and the shadow passes a narrow window then a person within that room may perceive that the shadow appears to flick on and off; this effect is known as shadow flicker. This only occurs within buildings where the shadow appears through a narrow window opening. Only buildings within 130 degrees either side of north relative to a turbine can be affected and the shadow can be experienced only within 10 rotor diameters of the wind farm.

6.28 Under current planning guidance there are no published criteria for the assessment of shadow flicker and there is no UK statutory limit or guidance to stipulate acceptable levels of shadow flicker and at what point it becomes a nuisance to human beings. However, some suggest (Northern Irish PPS 18, Predac, 2004) in order to avoid nuisance a maximum of 30 hours of shadow flicker in a calendar year is acceptable with no longer than 30 minutes on any one single occasion.

6.29 The submitted Shadow Flicker Assessment has found that the greatest degree of shadow flicker may be experienced at High Barn Farm (north-east) and would be, assuming a worst case scenario, a maximum of 22.16 hours per annum with a maximum of 26 minutes a day. In line with the guidance referred to above, this is not considered to be significant.

Residential Amenity

6.30 For the local residents and surrounding areas the effect of the proposed wind turbine on their visual amenities when they are in their own properties needs to be considered. The nearest neighbouring properties with a potential view of the proposed turbine are located at Wood House Farm (425m to the north), High Barns (450m to the north-east) and Woods Farm (520m to the south). The LVIA states that none of these properties would have clear, uninterrupted views of the proposed turbine and that the turbine would not have an overbearing or overwhelming visual impact on these properties. Beyond these nearest neighbouring properties are more residential properties situated sporadically in the surrounding rural areas and approximately 750m to the south-west of the site is the periphery of Kirkby. I consider that the turbine would be seen against an expanse of flat landscape and sky over distant views with surrounding industrial development in its backdrop. Therefore, I do not consider that the turbine would be so prominent and visually intrusive for surrounding residential properties to warrant a refusal of planning permission. Highway Safety

6.31 The application site is situated off an unnamed access road to Simonswood Industrial Estate to the west of the site. A Highways, Transportation and Access Report has been undertaken which assesses the proposed access arrangements and the impact of the proposals on the surrounding highway network during the construction and operational phases. The report concludes that only during the construction phase will there be a material impact upon the local highway network as a result of delivery vehicles accessing the site. However, there is an appropriate and safe route to the site for delivery vehicles and given the local roads are already subject to frequent HGV trips to and from the industrial estate, the roads are considered to be capable of accommodating the proposed construction/delivery vehicles. During the operational lifetime of the turbine, minimal traffic movements will be generated.

Aviation

6.32 The NPPF indicates that “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development and approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable”. Local planning authorities should also take into consideration the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN1) and Planning Practice Guidance for renewable and low carbon energy. Policy EN1 of the WLLP is also relevant.

6.33 Section 5.4 of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN1) addresses civil and military aviation and defence interests. Paragraph 5.4.9 states that “It is important that new energy infrastructure does not significantly impede or compromise the safe and effective use of any defence assets”. Paragraph 5.4.17 sets out circumstances where permission should not be granted, one of the circumstances listed is that the development should not have an “impact on the safe and efficient provision of en route air traffic control services for civil aviation, in particular through an adverse effect on the infrastructure required to support communications, navigation or surveillance systems” Paragraph 31 of the Planning Practice Guidance for renewable and low carbon energy echoes this advice.

6.34 The Ministry of Defence (MoD), Liverpool John Lennon Airport and National Air Traffic Services (NATS) have been consulted as part of the application process as wind turbines can affect their radar systems. None of these bodies has raised objections to the proposed wind turbine and there are no aviation safeguarding reasons to object to this proposal.

6.35 I have received an objection from Life-Flight Helicopters Ltd (Merlyns Life Flight for Children) who have a 24hr operational Helicopter base in Hall Lane, off Moss Lane in Simonswood. They object on grounds of aviation safety in that the siting of the turbine would compromise the safe arrival and departure of aircraft using the landing zone. Their letter also states that they do not agree with the total content of the Aviation Document submitted in support of the application.

6.36 At the time the Basford Farm wind turbine (2013/1114/FUL) was being considered by the Council, further advice was sought from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) specifically relating to an objection from this party. Their response indicated that the CAA has no regulatory oversight of unlicensed aerodromes; the aerodrome operator remains responsible for safeguarding their own site. The CAA would expect the operator of Life-Flight Helicopters to assess the potential impact to their operations and any objection should be reasonable and justifiable with supporting evidence. The CAA also stated that they can see no reason why the helicopter base would not still be useable.

Safety

6.37 There have been incidents throughout the UK where wind turbines have been reported to set on fire or shed part or all of a blade. Turbines are designed to operate at high safety standards and the wind energy industry has a duty to act responsibly. Although there is never any guarantee that the turbine will operate safely throughout its lifespan, wind turbines are now designed with sophisticated safety systems, including shut down in high winds. I am satisfied that there are no health and safety grounds to object to the current proposal.

Ecology and Ornithology

6.38 ODPM Circular 06/2005- Biodiversity and Geological Conservation advises that Local Planning Authorities must be clear regarding potential impacts of a development on protected species prior to the determination of a planning application. Policy EN2 in the Local Plan seeks to protect biodiversity by resisting development, which would destroy or adversely affect important wildlife habitats. In this case, the nearest international designation is Stanley Bank Meadow SSSI which is located over 10km to the south-east. The nearest local designations are two local nature reserves, around 3km to the east and south of the site.

Bats

6.39 The initial Phase 1 Ecological Survey submitted with the planning application concludes that the application site is of very low ecological value due to its intensive arable management. The position of the turbine is away from good bat foraging habitat and will not lead to a significant direct impact upon bats.

6.40 However, the County Ecologist considers that the assessment of impacts on bats is not particularly robust as it lacks an adequate local data search for records of bats, and no bat activity surveys were carried out. Despite this, they do acknowledge that the proposed location is unlikely to support high populations of bats. In order to ensure that the risk to bats (killing and injuring) is minimised the turbine will be sited a minimum of 50m away from bat habitat (in this case, field boundary vegetation). I am satisfied that this approach will secure appropriate and proportionate avoidance of impacts on bats and their habitat.

Birds

6.41 The application site is in an area known to be used by pink-footed geese which are an interest feature of the Ribble Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Ribble and Alt Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA). The Phase 1 Ecological Survey identified that further survey work should be undertaken in respect of this species. Surveys were undertaken from December 2013 until the end of March 2014. These surveys began towards the end of the peak count period (November). Therefore, the collision risk impact modelling has been based on the peak count identified during the survey works – 958 birds. Based on the assumption of 958 birds crossing the site twice a day between September and March, the calculations equate a collision risk to just 1.185 birds or 0.008% of the Ribble and Alt Estuary population (23,860). However, this number is likely to be considerably lower based on the lack of birds recorded in the survey from February and March (none). Therefore, even in the unlikely situation where every one of the Ribble and Alt Estuary pink-footed goose population passed through the survey area, the total collision risk would be 46.08 birds or 0.199% of the population. Based on this data, Natural England are satisfied that sufficient information has been submitted in respect of the potential impact upon this species and raise no objections to the proposed development. I am therefore satisfied that, even in the worst case scenario demonstrated above, it can be reasonably concluded that the proposed wind turbine would have no significant adverse effects on the conservation objectives of the Ribble and Alt Estuary SPA pink-footed goose population.

6.42 In respect of barn owls, the County Ecologist has stated that the turbine would pose a low risk to this species in this location.

6.43 Overall, I am satisfied that sufficient information has been provided as part of the application to allow an assessment of the impact of the development on protected species. The advice in Circular 06/2005 has been adhered to, the location of this turbine (subject to a 50m buffer between the field boundary vegetation) would maintain the species of principle importance at favourable status and the proposal therefore complies with Policy EN2 in the Council’s adopted Local Plan.

Summary

6.44 In summary, whilst the proposal is within Protected Land and will be a prominent feature within the landscape, I consider that the creation of renewable energy from the turbine will outweigh any limited harm. I am also satisfied that all site planning details, including the design and external appearance of the turbine, residential amenity and biodiversity have been adequately addressed. Given the above, my recommendation is that planning permission be granted.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. This permission shall expire after 25 years following the date that electricity generated from the turbine is first connected to the grid. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified of such date in writing not later than one month from the making of such connection. 3. Within 12 months of the cessation of electricity generation, or if the turbine ceases to be operational for a continuous period of 6 months or any such period as may otherwise be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the turbine and any associated equipment shall be removed and the land reinstated in accordance with a decommissioning scheme to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4. All parts of the wind turbine shall be colour treated in grey and maintained as such thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 5. All works shall take place in accordance with the approved plans and documents. A 500kW wind turbine shall be developed in accordance with the dimensions specified on plan SIMONWOOD/002 (URS), with a hub height of 75m and a blade length of 27m (total height 102m). The location of the wind turbine shall be developed as stated on plan SIMONSWOOD/001 (URS) at grid reference point E342857 N400768 with a minimum distance of 50m remaining between the blade tips and the field boundaries. . The external appearance and materials of the turbine shall be developed in accordance with the EWT Direct Drive Wind Technology Report received by the Local Planning Authority on 22nd May 2014.. 6. The location of the substation shall be developed at Site Option A or B in accordance with the approved plans. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the final substation location prior to development. 7. All cabling between the wind turbine and the substation shall be laid underground. Any excavated ground shall be restored to its former condition within 6 months of the commissioning of the wind turbine. 8. Prior to commencement of any part of the development hereby approved, including site clearance, ground preparation, or drainage works, a facility shall be provided by which the wheels of all vehicles leaving the site can be cleaned. The wheels of all vehicles leaving the site during all stages of implementation shall be cleaned so that they do not carry any mud, soil, grit or other such materials onto the public highway. 9. The transportation of construction materials to and from the site shall take place in accordance with the details contained within the Access, Issues and Mitigation Report by Carl Tonks Consulting dated May 2014. 10. a) The noise emission from the wind turbine when operating in isolation shall not exceed 35 dB(A) LA90.10min when calculated in accordance with 'A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise' May 2013 at the curtilage of any noise-sensitive premises lawfully existing at the time of this consent at wind speeds up to and including 10 ms-1 at 10m height.

b) For the purpose of this condition, curtilage is defined as 'the boundary of a lawfully existing domestic garden area'.

c) At the request of the Local Planning Authority (LPA), the wind turbine operator shall, at their own expense, employ a suitably competent and qualified person to measure and assess, by a method to be approved in writing by the LPA, whether noise from the turbine meets the specified level. The assessment shall be commenced within 21 days of the notification, or such longer time as approved by the LPA.

d) The method described in paragraph (c) above shall include an assessment of tonality, as described in IEC 61400-11 (small/large turbines) and ISO 1996- 2:2007 (small turbines). Where a tone is identified a penalty shall be added to the measured sound levels in accordance with ETSU-R-97.

e) A copy of the assessment, together with all recorded data and audio files obtained as part of the assessment, shall be provided to the LPA (in electronic form) within 60 days of the notification.

f) If the assessment requested by the LPA demonstrates that the specified level is being exceeded, the operator of the turbine shall take immediate steps to ensure that the noise emissions from the turbine are reduced to, or below, the specified noise limit. The operator shall provide written confirmation of that reduction to the LPA within a time period to be agreed with the LPA. In the event that it is not possible to achieve the specified noise limit with mitigation within a reasonable time period, then the operation of the turbine shall cease.

g) In the event that an alternative turbine to that contained in the submitted noise assessment (EWT DW 54 500KW) is chosen for installation, then development shall not take place until a new desktop site specific noise assessment of the proposed turbine has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

h) Where micro-siting of the turbine has been approved, the applicant shall provide the 12-figure national grid reference of the installed turbine to the Local Planning Authority within 4 weeks of commissioning of the turbine. 11. Construction work, which is audible from the boundary of any noise sensitive receptor, shall only take place between the hours of 08:00 - 18:00 on Monday to Friday inclusive, 08:00 - 13:00 hours on Saturdays with no such working on a Sunday or local or national public holiday. Outside these hours, development at the site shall be limited to turbine erection, maintenance, emergency works, dust suppression and the testing of plant and equipment, or construction work that is not audible from any noise-sensitive property outside the site. The receipt of any materials or equipment for the construction of the site, other than turbine blades, nacelles, and towers, is not allowed outside the said hours, unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority having been given a minimum of two working days notice of the occurrence of the proposed event. 12. The operation of the turbine shall take place in accordance with the shadow flicker mitigation scheme unless the Local Planning Authority gives its prior written consent to any variation.

Reasons 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. To prevent unnecessary visual intrusion and so ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD. 3. To prevent unnecessary visual intrusion and so ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD. 4. To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory and that the development therefore complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 5. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 6. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 7. To prevent unnecessary visual intrusion and so ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD. 8. To avoid the possibility of the public highway being affected by the deposit of mud and/or loose materials thus creating a potential hazard for road users and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 9. To safeguard the safety and interests of the users of the highway and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 10. To safeguard the occupiers of the surrounding area from excessive noise intrusion and so ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 11. To safeguard the occupiers of the surrounding area from excessive noise intrusion and so ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 12. To safeguard the amenity of adjacent properties and the area generally and so comply with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document.

GN1 - Settlement Boundaries GN3 - Criteria for Sustainable Development EN1 - Low Carbon Development and Energy Infrastructure EN2 - Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Natural Environment EN4 - Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Cultural and Heritage Assets

PROPOSAL Change of use of former public house to convenience store and offices including rear extension to accommodate food retail on ground floor with offices on first and second floors. Construction of a three bed detached dwelling including new vehicular/pedestrian access. APPLICANT McComb Property Company Ltd WARD Derby PARISH Unparished - Ormskirk TARGET DATE 14th August 2014

1.0 REFERRAL

1.1 This application was to be dealt with under the Council’s delegation scheme, however Councillors Sudworth, Owens and Greenall have requested that it be referred to the Planning Committee to consider the impact of the proposed development on the potential for increased traffic congestion on Wigan Road, parking issues relating to deliveries and customers and in acknowledgement of the volume of representations received by the Council.

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 1996/0791 - Alterations to provide bed/breakfast accommodation (four bedrooms) to second floor. GRANTED 01.10.1996

2.2 1994/0545 - Entrance porch at rear. GRANTED 12.07.1994

2.3 1994/0133 - Alterations and extensions to first floor including two external staircases, one at rear and one at side, and use of part of first floor for bed and breakfast accommodation. GRANTED 10.05.1994

3.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER (12.08.2014) – Some concerns with respect to noise from the proposal. However the proposal would result in the removal of a public house which can result in sources of noise nuisances late at night. The application premises is proposed to be open from 07.00 – 22.00, which will bring noise from customers and their vehicles throughout the day and into late evening. There are also likely to be vehicles parking on the street on the residential estate when the car park is full. The delivery area appears to be accessed from the car park. Deliveries for this type of store will involve chilled and frozen products via refrigerated vehicles and newspaper deliveries and will also need regular waste collections. Such vehicles usually have reversing alarms, if these are allowed in the early morning they can cause significant disturbances to nearby residents. A restriction on the hours of such vehicle movements would therefore be required. The proposed house will buffer the existing properties from some noise and activity but would in turn be close to sources of noise and activity. The area marked up for plant is adjacent to residential neighbours, further information on the likely plant would be required. Conditions are recommended in respect of both noise and lighting

3.2 COUNTY SURVEYOR – The planning application is for more than 250sqm of A1 Food Retail and as such the applicant is required to provide an acceptable Transport Study for the overall development, as part of this planning application. The required Transport Study is required before accurate highway comments can be provided and as such the comments and recommendations below are provisional and have been based on the shop being food retail. Based on Appendix F, the developer should be providing 1 parking space per 14sqm of gross floor area for A1 food retail units (340/14=24) and 1 parking spaces for 30sqm for office development (360/30=12). The overall parking provision for the shop and office development should therefore be (24+12=36). The applicant is only proposing a total of 10 off-road parking spaces, a 72% reduction below expected requirements. As the office development would potentially take up all of the parking spaces this would not leave any off-road parking spaces for the shop during office opening hours. The existing waiting restrictions in the area do not extend into all of School House Green and there are no waiting restrictions on Oak Green, Willow Green or Meadow Bank to control parking and as such there is no protection for the existing residents at a loss to amenity. The existing highway layout of the aforementioned streets is not safe for overspill car parking, without causing obstruction, preventing safe two way traffic movements, obstruction of sight lines, obstruction of pedestrian movements due to parked cars on shared surface access roads. It is considered that the applicant has not provided adequate off-road parking provision for the approved dwelling. The proposed changes to the site access would be detrimental to pedestrian safety for existing residents by increasing the amount of road they would need to cross, with increased vehicle movements. The open junction would also increase vehicle speeds at a detriment to highway safety for vehicles and pedestrians.

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 A total of 117 representations have been received in objection to the proposed development, including a petition with 703 signatures. A summary of the issues raised is as follows:- Impact on highway safety Increase in existing traffic congestion on Wigan Road Inadequate off-road parking facilities No need for another convenience store on Wigan Road The existing Public House is not closed and is continuing to trade Detrimental impact on existing local businesses Proposal should be located in the town centre Inadequate access for delivery lorries Loss of important local building Impact on street scene with loss of pub frontage Noise pollution Existing empty retail and office accommodation in Ormskirk Environmental pollution Impact of proposed dwelling on amenities of neighbouring properties in the road The movement of delivery vehicles will have a detrimental impact on the amenities of local residents and the health and safety of local children Loss of character Traffic on Wigan Road and the surrounding areas is already at a maximum Impact on emergency vehicles needing to get to Ormskirk Hospital Contrary to Local Plan, in particular Policies GN3 and GN4 Result in additional litter in the area Close proximity of proposed dwelling to neighbouring dwellings will impact upon their light and privacy 24-hours cash machine would bring noise to local residents at all times The existing local shops do not close early Encourage anti-social behaviour The building should be retained as a family friendly pub The applicant has failed to explain how HGVs would turn on-site Site could be converted into affordable housing A full impact assessment has not been carried out regarding the impact on the local community The proposal would be of no economic benefit to the locality as it would result in the closure of local independent stores The proposal would represent a duplication of existing services The proposal should include three electric vehicle recharging points No recycling facilities have been provided The Council have failed to anticipate the need for additional infrastructure having granted consent for so many new homes in the area The Ropers Arms provides bed and breakfast facilities which are rare in this area The side elevation window of the proposed dwelling should be maintained with obscure glazing.

5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

5.1 Design and Access Statement Tree Report 6.0 LOCAL PLAN ALLOCATION

6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027) DPD (WLLP) provide the policy framework against which the development will be assessed.

6.2 The site is located with a Settlement Boundary as designated in the WLLP.

NPPF

Building a strong, competitive economy Ensuring the vitality of town centres Promoting sustainable transport Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

West Lancashire Local Plan Policies

SP1 – A Sustainable Development Framework for West Lancashire GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development GN4 – Demonstrating Viability GN5 – Sequential Tests RS1 – Residential Development IF1 – Maintaining Vibrant Town and Local Centres IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choices EN1 – Low Carbon Development and Energy Infrastructure EN2 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Natural Environment

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

Site Description

7.1 The site is located on the south side of Wigan Road close to the junction with School House Green. The site contains the Ropers Arms Public House, a business which is currently trading. The first floor of the building provides Bed and Breakfast accommodation, ancillary to the Public House. To the rear of the pub is an area which provides parking, delivery access and a terrace area.

7.2 The application site lies within a settlement boundary area and is located approximately 350m east of the Primary Shopping Area and 205m east of Ormskirk Town Centre. Proposal

7.3 Planning permission is sought for a change of use of the Ropers Arms and extensions to the rear to accommodate a Co-operative convenience store at ground floor level and office accommodation at first and second floor levels. In addition a three bed detached dwelling is proposed to the rear of the site. Access to the site would be via School House Gardens with the main entrance to the shop being from the south (rear) of the building. Access to the offices would be via an entrance on the eastern elevation. A total of 10 parking spaces are proposed to the rear of the building to serve the proposed retail and office accommodation. A plant room, which would be enclosed by a timber panel fence, is also proposed to the rear of the building. A 24-hour ATM is proposed to the rear of the building. The proposed opening hours of the retail store would be 0700 - 2200 Monday to Saturdays and 0800 – 2200 on Sundays and Banks Holidays.

7.4 The proposed dwelling would be located to the rear of the aforementioned parking area and would have a separate vehicular access. The proposed dwelling would be two stories in height and accommodate three bedrooms.

Assessment

Principle of Development – Retail

7.5 The site is located within a main settlement area, outside the boundaries of both Ormskirk’s Primary Shopping Area and Town Centre.

7.6 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF requires the application of a sequential test to planning applications for ‘main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan’. Applications for main town uses should be located, where possible, within town centres in the first instance. The order of preference for the sequential approach is:-

first, locations within existing town centres second, edge of centre locations, with preference given to accessible sites that are well connected to the centre; and then out-of-centre sides, only in circumstances where there are no in-centre of edge-of-centre sites available. Preference should be given to accessible sites that are well-connected to the town centre. 7.7 Annex 2 of the NPPF (Glossary) confirms that edge of centre is defined as ‘for retail purposes, a location that is well connected and up to 300 metres of the primary shopping area. For all other main town centre uses, a location within 200 metres of a town centre boundary. For office development, this includes locations outside of the town centre but within 500 metres of a public transport interchange. In determining whether a site falls within the definition of edge of centre, account should be taken of local circumstances’.

7.8 Policy IF1 of the WLLP (Maintaining Vibrant Town and Local Centres) reiterates the approach set out at paragraph 24 of the NPPF and includes a retail hierarchy which identifies Ormskirk as one of three town centres within the Borough. The sequential status of the application site is determined to be out-of-centre as it is not located within the Town Centre and it is not within 300m of the Primary Shopping Area.

7.9 Policy GN5 in the WLLP also advises that a sequential test will be required for proposed retail uses on sites outside of town centres, in line with national policy.

7.10 The applicant has not provided any sequential information with which to support the proposed development. In the absence of this, there remains concern that the proposed retail development, due to its location outside of the town centre and not being an edge-of-centre site due to its distance from the primary shopping area, has the potential to have a negative impact on the vitality and viability of Ormskirk Town Centre. On this basis the proposed development is found to be contrary to both national and local policy.

Principle of Development - Offices

7.11 The proposed office accommodation at first and second floor level must also be considered in accordance with paragraph 24 of the NPPF and Policies IF1 and GN5 in the WLLP. It should be noted that both the WLLP and the NPPF contain the following definition of main town centre uses;-

‘Retail development (including warehouse clubs and factory outlet centres); leisure, entertainment facilities, the more intensive sport and recreation uses (including cinemas, restaurants, bars and pubs, night-clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres and bingo halls); offices; and arts, culture and tourism development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities)’.

7.12 As with the retail assessment above, in order to comply with both local and national policy, it would be necessary for the applicant to prove, through a sequential exercise, that there is not a more appropriate location within the town centre to accommodate the proposed offices. As per the definition provided in the NPPF, it is accepted that the location could be considered an edge-of-centre location as it is within 300m of a town centre boundary and 500 metres of a public transport interchange.

7.13 In the absence of such sequential information, the proposed office element of the development is considered to be contrary to both national and local policy and potentially harmful to the vitality and viability of Ormskirk Town Centre.

Principle of Development – Residential

7.14 Policy RS1 in the WLLP advises the Council that residential development will be permitted on brownfield sites subject to the proposals conforming with all other planning policy within the Borough’s settlement area, which the application site is defined as. Therefore, subject to the proposed dwelling conforming with other relevant planning policies, I am satisfied that the principle of development is acceptable.

Loss of Community Facility

7.15 Policy IF3 in the WLLP advises the Council that the loss of any community facility such as (but not limited to) pubs, offices, community centres and open space will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that the facility is no longer needed, or can be relocated elsewhere that is equally accessible by the community.

7.16 The Ropers Arms is currently trading as a Public House with associated living and bed and breakfast accommodation at first floor level. It is therefore recognized as a viable facility and one which contributes to the local community. The applicant (via correspondence received on 20th August 2014) acknowledges that the pub remains open (as opposed to the information provided in the submitted Design and Access Statement). The applicant has stated that the existing business would be transferred to the nearby Windmill Inn (also in the ownership of the applicant and currently not trading) prior to the proposed redevelopment of the application site.

7.17 This arrangement would appear to achieve compliance with Policy IF3 in that the existing community facility would be ‘relocated elsewhere that is equally accessible by the community’. Given the nature of this proposed arrangement and in order to avoid the loss of a viable community facility, this would need to be agreed by way of a legal agreement.

Design/Appearance

7.18 The proposed development involves a rear extension to the building at both ground and first floor level. The proposed increase in the scale of the building would not be significantly noticeable from the street scene perspective as the front dimensions of the building remain as existing. However the proposed extension would be visible when approaching the site from either the east or west. Whilst the proposed extensions are considered to be of a significant scale, given the use of the existing site and the available space to the rear, I am satisfied that the design and appearance of the proposed development would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene or harmful to character of the existing building. Soft landscaping is proposed along the east side of the building and to the rear of the site which will assist in assimilating the development into its surroundings.

Highways

7.19 Access to the main site would remain as existing, that is off School House Green although the existing access would be widened by approximately 4m. Access would lead into the rear of the site with parking provided along the site boundaries leaving a central open area. A total of 10 parking spaces would be provided. No specific delivery or manoeuvring areas have been highlighted but it is understood that the proposed retail store would be serviced from the rear of the building.

7.20 The Highway Authority has confirmed that as the proposed development is for more than 250sqm of A1 food retail, a Transport Study for the overall development should be provided. In the absence of such information the impact on the local highway network cannot be fully considered and therefore concern remains that the proposed development may have a detrimental impact on highway safety and capacity in this respect.

7.21 Policy IF2 and Appendix F in the WLLP provides details of parking requirements. It has been identified that the proposed development is not accompanied by adequate off-road parking provision and that there is a shortfall of approximately 72% of the required level. It is acknowledged that the application site is located in a sustainable location and that some customers/employees may attend the site on foot. However despite its location, I am not convinced that the proposed development could operate affectively with the level of parking proposed and the resulting impact would be one which causes harm to highway safety and the free flow of traffic in the local area. The under provision of car parking may lead to an overspill of on-street parking within local residential areas which I consider would be detrimental to highway safety and to the amenities of local residents. In addition, the widened access along School House Gardens would make pedestrian movements in this area more difficult especially considering the increase in vehicular movements brought about by the proposed development.

7.22 No information has been provided in respect of the type of delivery vehicles which would be required to service the retail store or the frequency of such deliveries. However it is anticipated that such vehicles could include HGVs and deliveries would be expected to take place on a daily basis. This would differ to a normal delivery arrangement for public houses. No swept path information has been provided in respect of the manoeuvring of large vehicles onto the site. I accept that the widened access would help to facilitate this, but I am not convinced that HGVs could access the site without causing severe harm to the movement of vehicles along School House Green. In addition, in the event that the car park was at full capacity, I am not convinced that large vehicles could manoeuvre on site to ensure that they could leave the site in forward gear.

7.23 No specific on-site parking is shown in respect of the proposed dwelling to the rear of the site. In accordance with Policy IF2 in the WLLP, 2 dedicated parking spaces should be provided. Therefore this element of the proposal is also considered to be contrary to local policy in respect of parking requirements.

7.24 Policy GN3 in the WLLP requires [inter alia] development to integrate well with the surrounding area and provide safe, convenient and attractive pedestrian and cycle access, ensure that parking provision is made in line with the standards set out in Local Plan Policy IF2 and Appendix F, provide Transport Assessments and Travel Plans for proposals for development over a certain size in line with the latest DfT guidance and incorporate suitable and safe access and road layout design. On the basis of the above, it is considered that the proposed development fails to accord with local policy in respect of parking provision, highway safety and pedestrian safety. This reflects the views expressed by the Highway Authority.

Neighbouring amenity

7.25 Policy GN3 requires proposals for new development to retain or create reasonable levels of privacy, amenity and sufficient garden/outdoor space for occupiers of proposed and neighbouring properties.

7.26 Activity associated with the proposed development and in particular the proposed retail element would be centered to the rear of the building within an area located between the existing building and those neighbouring residents to the south within School House Green and Willow Green. I am concerned over the noise from customers and servicing/delivery vehicles and the impact this would have on these local residents. In addition the inclusion of a 24 hour ATM has the potential to attract unlimited vehicular movements. Whilst I accept that the existing business attracts customer parking late into the evenings and is serviced by delivery vehicles throughout the week, I do not consider that these would be as intensive as those associated with the proposed development. For example, the proposed retail use would attract deliveries on a daily basis, a level of servicing which I do not believe would be associated with the existing pub. However I acknowledge that the proposed dwelling would provide some buffering between the proposed business and the neighbouring dwellings and I accept that the existing site is currently a source of noise. As advised by the Council’s Environmental Health team, I consider that it would be possible to impose conditions to restrict the opening hours of the proposed retail element, the times during which deliveries could be made, noise levels and the presence of acoustic fencing along the site boundaries. On balance therefore I accept that concerns in respect to the impact on neighbouring amenity could be satisfactorily addressed.

7.27 The proposed dwelling would be located approximately 12.5m from the rear of the neighbouring properties to the south. The proposed dwelling does not contain any main habitable room windows to the side elevation facing these windows and the proposed bathroom window could be maintained with obscure glazing to prevent any direct overlooking of the neighbouring gardens. Whilst the proposed dwelling would be located in close proximity to these neighbouring dwellings, given the separation distance of over 12m, I am not convinced that this relationship would warrant a reason for refusal.

7.28 There is a 3m gap between the application site and the neighbouring property to the west No. 50 Wigan Road, the end in a row of terrace properties which front onto Wigan Road. The proposed extension of the building would extend a further 10m to the rear along the boundary with this neighbouring property. However this is largely single storey in height and together with the existing gap, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on the amenities of this neighbouring resident to the west. With respect to the neighbouring property to the east, No. 1 Oak Green, the application site is separated from this dwelling by the carriageway of School House Green. I am satisfied that this separation distance is sufficient to ensure that the proposed development would not impact upon the amenities of this dwelling.

Trees

7.29 The submitted arboricultural report confirms that some of the existing trees, which are adjacent to the existing car park would be removed to facilitate the proposed development along with conifer hedges along the rear of the site. The submitted report concludes that due to the value of the existing landscaping, the landscaped areas should be cleared and replaced. Whilst landscaped areas are shown on the proposed site plan, full details have not been provided. It would however appear that there would be adequate land available for a suitable replacement scheme and I am satisfied that full details could be achieved through a planning condition.

Overall site layout

7.30 The inclusion of the proposed dwelling limits the opportunity for the applicant to provide additional parking/manoeuvring area to service the proposed retail and office use leading to potential on-street parking and unsafe vehicular movements into and out of the site to the detriment of neighbouring amenity. To this extent, I consider the proposed site layout is cramped and amounts to overdevelopment of the site contrary to Policy GN3 in the WLLP Other matters

7.31 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) allows for the change of use of buildings for certain uses. These permitted rights extend to the change of use of public houses (A4) to retail (A1) and public houses (A4) to professional or financial services (A2). However there is no permitted right to change a public house to a mixed use involving both A1 retail and A2 professional or financial services (of B1 offices). In addition the proposed commercial element of the proposal involves extensions to the rear which would not be allowable under permitted development rights. Therefore I do not consider that the development permitted under Part 3 to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) are a material consideration in the assessment of this proposal.

Summary

7.32 The proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policies IF2 and GN5 in the WLLP along with advice provided in the NPPF in respect of the proposed office and retail accommodation. This is due to the absence of any sequential information to support the use of the site for such purposes outside of the town centre. In addition, harm to highway safety, the free flow of traffic and neighbouring amenity has been identified due to the under provision of on-site car parking. On this basis the proposed development is found to be contrary to Policies GN3 and IF2 of the WLLP. In addition the proposed development is considered to constitute overdevelopment of the site contrary to Policy GN3 in the WLLP.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 That Planning Permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal 1. The proposed retail and office accommodation conflicts with policies IF1 and GN5 of the West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027) DPD and the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 24) in that it has not been demonstrated, by way of a Sequential Test, that there are no alternative sites within the Town Centre (in respect of both the retail and office) or edge-of-centre sites (in respect of the proposed retail) that could accommodate the use. 2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that delivery vehicles could safely access and exit the site, that adequate levels of on-site car parking can be provided and that a suitable vehicular access to the site can be provided. The development fails to comply with Policy GN3 and IF2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan (2012- 2027) DPD as it has not been demonstrated that the development would not result in a significant adverse/severe impact on highway capacity and safety in the locality. 3. The proposed development conflicts with Policy GN3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027) DPD in that it represents a cramped form of development which would potentially result in vehicles parking and manoeuvring on the adopted highway to the detriment of highway safety and the amenities of nearby residents.

No.8 APPLICATION 2013/1258/OUT NO. LOCATION Henry Alty Ltd Station Road Hesketh Bank Preston Lancashire PR4 6SP

PROPOSAL Outline - Residential development across two phases, including associated garages, roads, landscaping and public realm creation in the form of a linear park and B1 employment uses. Details of access included. APPLICANT Persimmon Homes Lancashire/Charles Church Developments Lancs WARD Hesketh-with-Becconsall PARISH Hesketh-with-Becconsall TARGET DATE 9th September 2014

1.0 RECENT RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 2004/1057 REFUSED (29.07.2005) Redevelopment of land for mixed use of employment and residential incorporating the erection of a building and use of land for storage, display and sale of building and horticultural supplies, erection of a block of individual units, provision of associated car parking and vehicle manoeuvring areas, erection of 83 dwellings, new access roads and provision of public open space.

1.2 2003/1462 GRANTED (20.05.2004) Erection of building for the storage, sale and distribution of horticultural supplies.

1.3 Adjacent site 2007/0553/FUL GRANTED (19.11.2007) Erection of foodstore with tea shop, car parking, servicing, associated landscaping and creation of three ponds.

1.4 Adjacent site 2005/0333 GRANTED (11.07.2005) Reserved Matters - Refurbishment and two-storey rear extension to existing building to provide three shop units with flat above and provision of car park at side. 1.5 Adjacent site 2003/0905 GRANTED (19.05.2004) Outline – Erection of Foodstore (1765sqm); car parking; service area; new access and extension to existing shop (including details of siting and access)

1.6 Adjacent site 2013/0858/OUT GRANTED (14.10.2013) Outline - Three detached dwellings including details of access.

1.7 Adjacent site 2013/1329/OUT GRANTED (13.02.2014) Outline - Construction of 2 No. detached homes including details of access.

2.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

2.1 SPORT ENGLAND (4.12.13) – no comments

2.2 NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (16.12.13) – advise that the local GP Practice is confident that it can meet the impending demands in terms of physical space and increased patient activity. Historically the Practice list has been in excess of 3,000 patients and it is therefore fully equipped to meet any growth in terms of the list size. The Practice has been aware of this development for some time and welcomes the opportunity to deliver services to the new residents.

2.3 LANCASHIRE CONSTABULARY (18.06.14 and 12.12.13) - development should be built to Secured By Design Standards. Detailed design advice provided. 2.4 ELECTRICITY NORTH WEST (18.06.14 and 19.12.13) - The development is shown to be adjacent to or affect Electricity North West operational land or electricity distribution assets. Where the development is adjacent to operational land the applicant must ensure that the development does not encroach over either the land or any ancillary rights of access or cable easements.

There is an extensive LV, HV and EHV network on the development site. The applicant should also be advised that, should there be a requirement to divert the apparatus because of the proposed works, the cost of such a diversion would usually be borne by the applicant. The applicant should be aware of our requirements for access to inspect, maintain, adjust, repair, or alter any of our distribution equipment.

2.5 SUSTRANS (18.06.14) – For local journeys on foot or by bicycle the river Douglas, traffic levels and speeds on the A59 act as physical barriers. Would like to see a site of this scale make a substantial contribution to a future foot/cycle bridge over the river, making a shorter and safer connection to adjacent communities. The design of the estate should restrict vehicle speeds to less than 20mph. The design of properties without garages should include storage areas for bikes/buggies. A travel plan should be set up for the different site uses, with targets and monitoring. 2.6 CANAL AND RIVER TRUST (30.06.14 and 23.12.13) – No objections

2.7 MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION (30.06.14 and 21.01.14) – Having reviewed the information, the MMO do not consider that a licence under the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) would be required.

2.8 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES (land contamination) (27.06.14 and 19.12.13) – site may be contaminated as a result of its past industrial/commercial use. An assessment of site contamination and any necessary remediation shall be detailed. The results of the desk study and site investigation, together with details of any proposed remediation, shall be approved by the LPA before development of the site commences. Any remediation scheme approved shall be carried out as part of the development of the site, and shall be followed by a validation report sufficient to prove that the remediation has been effective. This report must also be approved by the LPA.

2.9 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES (environmental health) (08.08.14 and 22.01.14) – No objection in principle. Conditions in relation to noise attenuation measures for dwellings adjacent to the employment area, the light railway and Station Road frontage; the permissible 'B' Class uses; and, construction operations should be applied.

2.10 HOUSING STRATEGY MANAGER (11.07.14 and 08.11.13) – The affordable housing contribution should be 35% and comprise a split of 80% social rent to 20% intermediate type tenures based on the Housing Need Survey. In addition, Policy RS1 and RS2 require that 20% of the new homes are designed specifically as accommodation suitable for the elderly.

2.11 WLBC TECHNICAL AND DESIGN SERVICES (drainage) 29.05.14) – In addition to the EA request for analysis of the potential for the outfalls to the River Douglas to be subject to “tide locking”, also request that a full hydraulic design be provided for all the main surface water drainage serving the site; investigation is carried out to determine the status of the watercourse shown on the OS plans; the Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment document be updated to reflect the findings of further investigation and design changes and consideration be given with the design to the protection and long term maintenance of an existing watercourse that runs on the southern boundary of the site.

2.12 LCC (PLANNING CONTRIBUTIONS) (08.07.14 and 07.01.14) – Initially commented that no contribution would be sought for primary or secondary school places, unless other major applications in the local area were approved prior to a decision being made on this application. Subsequent to the approval of residential development at Tarleton Mill, Longton Business Park and Land at Jubilee Road, LCC are seeking a contribution for 8 primary school places of 96,237. This claim will be reassessed once accurate bedroom information becomes available. 2.13 UNITED UTILITIES (01.07.14, 11.04.14 and 14.01.14) – No objection to the proposed development provided that the following condition is met:

Notwithstanding any indication on the approved plans, no development approved by this permission shall commence until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters for the entire site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, surface water must drain separate from the foul and no surface water will be permitted to discharge directly or indirectly into existing sewerage systems. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to prevent an undue increase in surface water run-off and to reduce the risk of flooding

Public sewers cross this site and we will not permit building over them. We will require an access strip widths in accordance with the minimum distances specified in the current issue of "Sewers for Adoption", for maintenance or replacement. As public sewers cross the site, a modification of the site layout, or a diversion of the affected public sewers at the applicant's expense, may be necessary.

Deep rooted shrubs and trees should not be planted in the vicinity of the public sewer and overflow systems.

Water pressure in this area is regulated to around 20 metres head. This should be taken into account when designing the internal plumbing. As the water pressures in the area are known to be generally low but above standard of service, I recommend that the applicant provides water storage of 24 hours capacity to guarantee an adequate and constant supply.

Our water mains will need extending to serve any development on this site. The applicant may be required to pay a capital contribution and will need to sign an Agreement under the Water Industry Act 1991. The level of cover to the water mains and sewers must not be compromised either during or after construction.

The location of this development falls within an area that has had historical water pressure issues, as part of United Utilities commitment to resolve these issues a new 450mm main is proposed to add significant supply to the area. These works will only be completed March 2015, so some restraint in speed of development would be advised.

A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant's expense and all internal pipework must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999. 2.14 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (18.07.14; 03.07.14; 16.06.14; 12.06.14; 04.06.14; 14.05.14; 01.05.14; 06.02.14; 30.01.14 and 16.01.14) –

Surface water and flood risk: Initially, the Environment Agency objected to the proposed development due to an unacceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The FRA has now been revised and updated to take account of unattenuated discharge to the tidal River Douglas and resultant tide locking, along with hydraulic modeling.

The EA have now confirmed that they are in a position to remove the original objection provided that any planning permission incorporates the following conditions:

Condition - The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) A087097 dated 04.04.2014 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA – “finished floor levels are set no lower than 150mm above existing ground levels”. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.

Condition – No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before any development is completed. The scheme shall also include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.

Reason – To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site.

The watercourse adjoining the site is designated a "main river" and is therefore subject to Land Drainage Byelaws. In particular, no trees or shrubs may be planted, nor fences, buildings, pipelines or any other structure erected within 8 metres of the top of any bank/retaining wall of the watercourse without prior consent of the Agency. It is essential that this 8m strip is preserved for access purposes. Full details of such works, together with details of any proposed new surface water outfalls, which should be constructed entirely within the bank profile, must be submitted to us for consideration. Contaminated Land: Following a review of the REC investigation, further investigation is necessary on the whole of the site. The landfill site is currently permitted, and this will require considerable further investigation and assessment prior to surrender. Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically and that the permitting status of any proposed on site operations are clear. Recommend the following condition:

Condition – No development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous uses; potential contaminants associated with those uses; a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; and potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason - To prevent pollution of controlled waters

2.15 NATURAL ENGLAND (07.08.14; 20.06.14 and 10.12.13) – No objection with respect to the potential impact of the development on statutory nature conservation sites in the vicinity. Not assessed the application and associated documents for impact on protected species and NE standing advice should applied as a material consideration. Comments provided in respect of Council's responsibilities in respect of Priority Habitats on the site; local nature reserves; biodiversity enhancements associated with the development; and, landscape enhancements.

There are some occasions when it is appropriate to condition surveys, usually where additional surveys are required but only when the full impacts of the proposal are understood at detailed stage; for instance to inform detailed mitigation or where there is a time lag between granting permission and development commencing. Advise that comments of LCC taken into account.

2.16 LCC (Flood Risk Management) (16.06.14 and 04.07.14) – No objection subject to conditions relating to further investigation to establish any historic ordinary watercourses on site with subsequent revision to surface water drainage strategy; land drainage consent being sought; opportunities to explore further Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems investigated and submission of a drainage strategy, dependent upon changes to the drainage approval process.

2.17 LCC ECOLOGY (09.07.14; 30.04.14 and 31.01.14) – Concerns raised about impacts upon Local Sites (non-statutory designated sites and Biological Heritage Sites), protected and priority species and habitats.

Impact on the three Biological Heritage Sites within the site:

Although the applicant has submitted the results of further surveys (vegetation, bats, barn owls and breeding birds), this information does not demonstrate that significant impacts on biodiversity would be avoided, adequately mitigated or as a last resort, compensated (as required by the NPPF). The proposals do also do not demonstrate that the requirements of all relevant wildlife legislation would be addressed.

The proposed development would result in the destruction of a large part of the BHS and, despite the fact that the BHS is being encroached by scrub, there would clearly be a loss of biodiversity value as a result for which no adequate compensation is proposed.

The survey also noted considerable areas of wet ground with standing water. The ES had stated that the wetter areas within the rank grassland and scrub would be expected to support good amphibian populations. However, and despite my earlier comments on this issue, no assessment of impacts on amphibians (other than great crested newt) appears to have been submitted. Impacts on common toads (section 41 NERC Act 2006) remain unknown.

Survey of Hesketh Bank Brickworks, South BHS notes a wide range of species, many of which are characteristic of old unimproved grassland in Lancashire, and a diversity of habitats. The report notes that the considerable diversity that exists is maintained by grazing, and that following cessation of grazing (as would occur if the site is developed) the areas will require continual sensitive management to maintain this diversity. Given the existing biodiversity interest (botanical and faunal), and the fact that long-term maintenance of this biodiversity in the absence of grazing is likely to be challenging, I remain of the opinion that it would be far more appropriate to protect this site from the adverse effects of development (i.e. not encroach upon it, and actually provide an additional vegetated buffer between the designated site and development; and exclude this area from the public open space). In my opinion the proposals do not demonstrate that the biodiversity value of Hesketh Bank Brickworks South BHS would be maintained, let alone enhanced by these proposals.

River Douglas BHS corridor. The survey concludes that any proposed footpath improvement or access arrangements could have the potential to damage saltmarsh habitats and it remains unclear what impacts might arise (formal or informal, through increased recreation.

Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other things, "minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures".

Paragraph 117 goes on to state that planning policies should "identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites [i.e. BHS in Lancashire] of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them..." and "promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of...ecological networks..."

The current proposals do not contribute to the preservation, restoration or recreation of the local ecological network and do nothing to enhance the resilience of the network (or it's component parts: the BHS) to current and future pressures. The proposals therefore appear contrary to the NPPF.

Impact on Bats:

The results of the activity surveys demonstrate that although bats may not roost within the site, they are commuting into the site from elsewhere to forage, with activity levels ranging from low (improved grassland) to moderate (grasslands, hedgerows, scrub) and high (woodlands/ woodland edges).

The addendum report indicates that one survey was carried out per observation point on separate dates, and by one surveyor only. It is therefore not possible to infer anything about concurrent use of the various parts of the site by bats, or use of the site throughout the bat active season (or even throughout the night, since surveys were carried around roughly in the period 9 – 11.30 pm only). Whilst the survey effort is sufficient to confirm that bats use the site, it does not appear to be strictly in accordance with recognised guidelines.

The indicative layout indicates that whilst some of the bat foraging and commuting habitat would be retained, much of the area of moderate to high bat activity would be lost. It also seems likely that much of the areas currently used by bats would be subject to increased levels of light pollution.

The bat activity report concludes that this would not result in a significant detrimental impact on the local bat population. However, no information on the local bat population, or contextual information (i.e. the status of the local bat population or the importance of this site to the local bat population) is provided. As noted above, surveys have not been sufficient to establish patterns or levels of bat activity throughout the night or bat active season.

Natural England standing advice species sheet: Bats indicates that indirect impacts on bats may occur through lighting and loss of commuting and foraging habitat, with the loss of key feeding areas potentially affecting the local conservation status of bat species. Natural England advise that where "areas of high bat activity are to be impacted, the surveys should highlight the key foraging areas along with ways in which these will be maintained and enhanced to maintain the population(s) of bats locally." In this case, the areas of higher bat activity are not proposed for retention or enhancement.

Natural England also advise that "although feeding habitats are not specifically protected, some proposals may cause significant disturbance to bats in relation to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)", i.e. in some cases the loss of feeding habitats could result in a breach of the legislation. West Lancashire Borough Council will therefore need to consider the likelihood of a breach of legislation when making this planning decision.

ODPM Circular 06/2006 indicates that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent to which they may be affected is established before planning permission is granted. In this case, the surveys have confirmed that protected species (bats) are present, but the extent to which they may be affected is unknown. The proposals will result in the loss of areas of high bat activity (key feeding areas) and moderate bat activity, for which no mitigation/ compensation appears to be currently proposed, and impacts during construction (loss of habitat, disturbance through lighting etc) and operation (including lighting) are not evaluated.

West Lancashire Borough Council will therefore need to carefully consider whether there is sufficient information before them to enable adequate engagement with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) in the making of the planning decision. Impact on Barn Owls:

According to the submitted report, the brick warehouse/ workshop building in the centre of the site has been known to be support a pair of breeding barn owls in previous years.

The recent survey was not able to confirm nesting this year, but it is noted that the potential nest sites were not inspected closely for evidence of nesting, and it is therefore possible that barn owls are currently nesting undetected at this site. Since breeding has been confirmed in previous years the report recommends that the building should be treated as a potential nest site. However, in my opinion given the constraints to survey, and the known difficulties associated with detecting nesting barn owls, and the fact that barn owls have nested at this site in previous years (and are known to show high fidelity to breeding sites and home ranges from year to year and through generations), it would seem more appropriate to adopt a precautionary approach and treat this as an occupied breeding site.

The report recommends measures to prevent disturbance, and the erection of at least two barn owl towers to replace the building to be lost. However, no mitigation or compensation for the loss of 0.7ha of optimal barn owl foraging habitat (together with some less optimal habitat) is proposed. It is therefore not clear that the proposed mitigation would be sufficient to secure the long-term future of the species in this area, or that it would ensure the viability of the breeding population in this area.

Natural England standing advice for protected species: breeding birds deals with barn owls, and advise that the LPA should refer to "Barn owls and rural planning applications: what needs to happen. A guide for planners." This emphasizes the need for the planning submission to demonstrate continuity (measures to allow barn owls to continuously occupy the site) and permanence (exactly where and how permanent provision for barn owls will be incorporated inside buildings). This document also emphasizes the need to mitigate against habitat loss, suggesting that where development includes the loss of rough grassland (barn owl foraging habitat) the LPA can seek to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure an equivalent area of rough grassland to that which will be lost, and to ensure its long-term maintenance.

In this case, a generic outline of mitigation (avoidance of disturbance, alternative roost/ nest sites somewhere at the site perimeter) is provided. This does not demonstrate continuity or permanence of nesting/ roosting sites, nor does it demonstrate mitigation or compensation for the loss of 0.7ha of optimal barn owl foraging habitat.

The proposals do not therefore demonstrate that the long-term future of the population of barn owls in this area would be secured. Impact on Great Crested Newts:

I remain concerned about impacts on great crested newts and their habitat as a result of these planning proposals. The applicant notes that a licence will be required, and West Lancashire Borough Council (as competent authority for the purposes of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)) will therefore need to consider the likelihood of a licence being issued in the making of this planning decision.

Unfortunately it remains unclear that the population of great crested newts could be maintained at a favourable conservation status. The proposals will result in increasing urbanisation around an already isolated population, together with a reduction in available habitat, and I fail to see how the creation of new breeding ponds (including the destruction of the marshy grassland – amphibian terrestrial habitat – to restore a breeding pond), and the subsequent use of the great crested newt mitigation area as public open space (and the proposals to offset losses of vegetation elsewhere by additional planting within the BHS, and the creation of SUDS ponds within the newt mitigation area) would maintain (let alone enhance) the population. In my opinion, it would more appropriate to enhance (and not develop) additional habitat around the BHS to buffer the BHS and to provide additional amphibian habitat. It would also be more appropriate to create a dedicated area of public open space on land which is not currently of high biodiversity value, rather than attempt to shoehorn the public open space into the BHS.

Given the losses of habitat at this site, the recent licenced mitigation, the pressures on the existing great crested newt habitat/ BHS, and the unqualified and unquantified impact of the proposals on Hesketh Bank Brickworks, South BHS, it would be disappointing if Natural England was minded to issue a European protected species licence for this development.

The applicant suggests that a full Habitat Management Plan will be submitted with the European protected species licence application.

However, without seeing full details and assessment of what is proposed in proximity to (and for) existing great crested newt habitat (including proposals for the BHS, public open space, inclusion of at least some new ponds as part of a SUDS/ drainage scheme, landscaping to offset habitat losses elsewhere, etc) I am unable to comment on the appropriateness of proposals for the BHS or the adequacy of great crested newt mitigation.

Breeding Birds: The applicant has submitted the report 'Alty's Site, Hesketh Bank, Lancashire: Breeding Bird Survey & Assessment' (Sensible Ecological Survey Solutions, June 2014). This includes the results of survey of 0.3ha of wet rank grassland and scattered scrub (part of the Hesketh Bank Brickworks North BHS) which is proposed for development.

Given the reduction in area of suitable habitat, and the increased urbanisation of the site, it therefore remains unclear that the value of the site to breeding birds (including nesting sites and foraging opportunities) could be maintained if the development is approved as proposed.

Waterfowl:

The applicant indicates that the lake will continue to be used by the current angling club, and operational impacts as a result of development are therefore unlikely to be significant (over and above existing levels). Provided that the lake does continue to be used by the current angling club, and recreational disturbance does not increase as a result of development, then this seems reasonable.

Invasive Species:

The recent botanical survey (reported by Sensible Ecological Survey Solutions, June 2014) confirms the presence of several invasive (Schedule 9 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)) species on site, including Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and cotoneaster. If West Lancashire Borough Council is minded to approve this application, appropriate working methods will need to be adopted to prevent the spread of these species as a result of development.

2.18 LCC HIGHWAYS (09.07.14; 28.04.14; 12.02.14 and 14.01.14) –

Summary and Conclusion

There is congestion on Station Road and Hesketh Lane at times. This development will result in increased flows on the existing transport network in and around the development site and beyond towards Tarleton and the A59 and A565. It is critical, therefore, that the impact of this development does not compromise the movement of people and goods by any mode on any part of the overall network.

The developers Transport Consultant (SCP Transport Planning) has provided further information since the submission of the original Transport Assessment and the LHA has been able to reach agreement on part of the package of mitigation measures considered necessary to make this site an acceptable and sustainable development, in line with NPPF. The impact of this proposal will not be directly mitigated by the off-site highway works proposed by the applicant to facilitate access for vehicular or sustainable transport modes. LCC consider that development related impacts could be mitigated somewhat through the provision of further good quality infrastructure provision for sustainable transport modes and funding to promote sustainable transport measures.

LCC has made reference to the need for appropriate and necessary s106 funding from this development LCC as local highway authority consider that, if all measures as detailed in the section titled 'Planning Obligations' are provided then the residual cumulative impacts of the development may not be severe or compromise overall safety.

With consideration for all the information now provided, LCC would not recommend an objection to the proposed development providing that appropriate funding (s106) for sustainable measures is secured and that all s278 measures as agreed and detailed above are delivered by the developer in line with agreed trigger points. Without delivery of all changes/funding provided it is considered the site does not meet the requirements of the NPPF and sustainable development. It is essential that suitable conditions are put in place to ensure these necessary measures are delivered and as such, conditions have been recommended.

General Comments/Assessment:

LCC embraces a one team approach, working closely with developers and the planning authority to deliver high quality, sustainable development. With this in mind the present and proposed traffic systems have been considered to highlight areas of concern that, potentially, could cause problems for the public, cyclists, public transport and motorists.

These final comments consider all the highways and transport information provided within the latest application documentation; this information includes a Transport Assessment (TA) and a Travel Plan (TP), both dated October 2013 and produced by SCP Transport Planning the developer's Transport Consultant as well as an updated Technical Note dated March 2014.

LCC have provided considerable feedback on this application site throughout the iterative planning process. This is outlined in three emails previously passed as interim comments to the planning authority,

Existing Site Use:

Currently, there remain limited existing uses on the site by Alty’s and others. However, I would note that the extant permission on the site has the potential to generate higher than currently observed traffic movements on the local highway network and given the nature of the permitted land use a number of the generated movements would be commercial/heavy goods vehicles. This has been taken into consideration by the highway authority.

Personal Injury Data:

There have been at least 4 personal injury accidents involving cyclists or pedestrian in the area over the last 5 years. This proposed development will increase traffic movements on Station Road and it is appropriate that this development supports measures which will improve facilities for all modes including pedestrians and cyclists in the vicinity of the site and beyond and also any measures that can be expected to help reduce the overall numbers of vehicles on Station Road.

Network Assessment:

The methodology used to assess the development in the Transport Assessment has been agreed with LCC in terms of traffic growth, trip rates and trip distribution.

There are number of existing issues on the current highway network, particularly in the vicinity of the local centre between the existing Alty's site access and Mill Lane. These include heavy traffic conditions at times including a significant number of HGV's and numerous potential conflict points as well as on street parking issues. This development has the potential to exacerbate these current conditions unless there is a strong package of measures to support sustainable transport. The site access proposals alone do not mitigate the additional traffic impact from this development.

There will be increased capacity at the Church Road/Hesketh Lane junction and a new mini roundabout is proposed to replace the existing priority junction. In addition, the developer has agreed to a funding contribution to review and update operation of the existing signalised junctions at A59 Bank Bridge/Coe Lane and A59 Liverpool Road/Church Road/A565 Southport Road as the development is built out.

Access:

Site access on Station Road for phase 1 is proposed via a mini roundabout and a priority junction is proposed for access to Phase 2 of the site. The proposed mini roundabout is acceptable and dropped kerbs across Station Road and the site access as well as improvement to bus stops have been agreed. A footpath along the eastern side of Station Road will be provided to link up with the footway that was provided when Booths was developed, which will require a retaining structure to support the embankment in the vicinity of the disused railway. These requirements can be delivered through S278 Agreements and planning condition.

Minimum carriageway widths of 5.5m are required throughout the residential element of the site and increased provision and/or associated measures will be necessary between the proposed site access (mini roundabout) and the employment land use to ensure site access is not restricted at any time

As part of the Phase 2 site access works, the existing southbound bus stop and shelter will need to be removed. This should be carried out under the s278 Agreement for the site access works. In addition, with the removal of this bus stop it has been agreed that the two bus stops serving the north and southbound directions on Station Road (immediately north of the proposed site access mini roundabout) will be upgraded, with shelters/stops and raised kerbs, to Quality Bus Standard. LCC require an agreed layout drawing for these bus stop improvement works.

The Design and Access Statement refers to the potential for a second Access (associated with Phase 2) via Astland Gardens. This is not included in the TA and has therefore not been assessed or considered. This is therefore not acceptable to the Highway Authority.

Internal site layout and car parking:

Whilst the application is in outline only, consideration will need to be given at the reserved matters stage to the proposed level of parking provision with regard to residential parking provision; employment site parking requirements: a Visitor centre and other potential facilities such as cycle hire etc.; the Fishing Club; the Light Railway enthusiasts and visitor attraction potential; the Linear Park visitor attraction potential, walkers, dog walkers, cyclists (park and cycle).

A condition should be attached to any approval granted regarding parking provision on site to satisfy the above elements. The number of parking spaces considered appropriate/necessary should be evaluated, based on current and expected future demand, to establish a parking strategy that will be secured within a long term plan. This appraisal of the potential visitor numbers should be presented and agreed with the LPA and LHA prior to any development commencing on site. In addition, the s106 agreement should include details regarding parking to ensure provision of the necessary parking spaces for all current and future site uses and how they will be delivered and maintained by the developer or WLC to an appropriate standard (to be agreed and may include lighting). It can reasonably be anticipated that the number of spaces required to service the Country Park, the Light Railway and the Fishing Club is around 60 parking spaces. Other detailed comments are provided which can be dealt with at reserved matters stage.

Pedestrian and Cycle Access:

The development has the potential to generate high car use on the surrounding road network. Therefore, the development proposals will need to provide strong pedestrian and cycle linkages with the wider area. The current and previous West Lancashire Local Plans have had a requirement for a masterplan for this site and policies for the Tarleton and Hesketh Bank Linear Park.

River Douglas Linear Park will bring benefit in the long term. The Linear Park requires funding and improved access opportunities to secure delivery. As things stand, the current application allocates land for the Park but falls well short of delivering necessary infrastructure and facilities (footpath/cycle links, visitor facilities, car parking and educational opportunities) to maximise opportunities to promote sustainability uses. In addition, there is an opportunity to deliver a Travel Plan which not only relates to the daily commute from the new houses but also to the promotional opportunities of more sustainable travel modes and active lifestyles through the Park and visitor facilities.

There is clearly a long term desire to build a cycle/footbridge across River Douglas on the line of the old railway and this matter has been highlighted by Sustrans in their consultation response to this application. There is a need to ensure this is still possible should this development be approved and constructed.

There are also sections of Station Road where inadequate footway width is available. It was regularly observed that children would spill onto the highway, due to insufficient footpath width, during school opening and closing times. Therefore, adequate footway width must be provided where this is within the gift of the developer and also funding commitment for improvements to existing (between the school and this residential site, in line with NPPF for sustainable development).

It is appropriate to seek planning obligation contributions from this development to support improvements to the local network and sustainable transport links, should the LPA be minded to approve this application. This funding will be used to implement changes to limit the negative impact of this large development on the existing, and at times, congested network.

A considered request for a Section 106 funding contribution of 450,000 towards a range of sustainable transport (pedestrian and cycle improvement) measures has been put together and is set out under the heading 'Planning Obligations (s106 Planning Contributions)' below. The package of measures will include consideration of the following: Sustainable links both to/from and within the linear park linking the site to the wider environment (including link to Sutton Avenue and alternate route to the High School; Zebra crossing facilities on Station Road within Hesketh Bank and in the vicinity of the Schools; Upgrade of unmade track between Boundary Meanygate/Johnsons Meanygate and Boundary Meanygate/ Dandy's Meanygate creating a link from Station Road through to proposed pedestrian/cycle provision associated with Banks Linear Park and a Bridge over the River Douglas linking to wider network.

Travel plan:

The Framework Travel Plan is acceptable. LCC would request a Section 106 funding contribution towards Travel Plan Support of 24,000. Personalised Travel Planning is a tested technique that influences modal shift from car to more sustainable modes of transport and is known to have positive impacts. Its provision could partially negate against the impacts of the development in the local area. This approach could help support targets set within the travel Plan and should be funded by the development.

Planning Contributions:

It is important that the network can maintain a level of reliability at all times of day for all transport modes, including public transport and that any increase in congestion can be suitably managed.

A considered request for Section 106 contributions towards sustainable transport has been based on a detailed assessment of the site and the submitted Transport Assessment. The planning contributions requested are detailed below:

Funding toward pedestrian and cycle improvements/measures - 450,000.

Review of Traffic Signals on A59 and A585 Preston New Road (Junction Review Contribution) - 20,000.

Travel Plan Support/Monitoring Contribution - 24,000

Funding of Measures to support targets set within the Travel Plan (Personalised Travel Planning) - 50,000

S278 Works:

A Section 278 Agreement for off-site highway improvements is expected between the developer and the highway authority (LCC) should the LPA be minded to approve this application. All agreed highway improvement schemes will be subject to detailed design. The Trigger points for S278 works will be before commencement of development unless otherwise agreed with LCC and the LPA. The agreed S278 works include:

Phase 1 access – mini roundabout. Current layout plan SCP/13159/F02 (Rev. D) with pedestrian footway improvements linking to the existing footway fronting the Booths store - subject to detailed design

Phase 2 access – priority junction. Current layout plan SCP/13159/F03 (Rev. B) to include removal of existing bus stop and shelter and the upgrade of two bus stops north of the site to quality bus standard with shelters - subject to detailed design

Hesketh Lane/Church Road/Plox Brow junction improvement - mini roundabout as agreed 'in principle' and shown in layout plan SCP/13159/F03 – subject to detailed design.

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Tarleton Parish Council (15.01.14) – Objects.

Highways - Significant concerns in respect of existing highway constraints and likely exacerbation of highway situation including increased traffic. Require clarification on exactly what highway improvements are proposed. Disagree that the Green Lane Link will improve flows. The traffic generated by the development will increase the risk to pedestrians as a consequence of the limitations to the existing pavements along Hesketh Lane and Station Road.

Public transport - provision in the locality is not capable of offsetting private car use generated by the development and, in any case, is unlikely to be sustained. References to Croston Rail Station do not recognise its limitations or need to travel by car to get there. Bus services in the locality are potentially under threat.

Masterplanning – no co-ordinated exercise has taken place with the relevant local and national partners; only limited/inadequate public consultation has taken place. No engagement has occurred in respect of the Linear Park and no form proposals are provided with the application; this could prejudice the Linear Park project.

Local water supply / sewerage systems - barely coping with current demand. Insufficient detail is provided in the submissions as to how additional demand will be dealt with. No employment generating uses are proposed, the development is contrary to EC3.

Inappropriate development proposal at the head of Astland Gardens & confusing/contradictory commentary on development in this area.

3.2 Hesketh with Becconsall Parish Council (24.02.14) – Objects.

This proposal could represent the largest step change in the history of the Parish; the prospect of a 17 acre park and useable river pathway to Tarleton is a huge opportunity which the Council is keen to support. However, the proposed built development, which would underpin the delivery of the Park, is flawed.

Linear Park - no reference is made to the Liner Park Feasibility Study and whilst the application marks the allocation of land for the park, it fails to illustrate its delivery.

Highways – substantial concerns about the safety of the proposed roundabout immediately after the brow of the old bridge; no provision for footway on eastern side of the bridge; additional volume of traffic along Station Road/Hesketh Lane especially in Tarleton. Wish the views of the Parish Council be associated with those of LCC Highways earlier comments.

Too dense a development and layout does not appear to have sufficient parking for houses or the proposed Park.

Masterplanning – does not appear to have been carried out as informed by the Inspector’s recommendation in the Local Plan. Developer should be required to engage with the Linear Park Delivery Group.

Marketing of the area marked for employment use should commence immediately to avoid it becoming an issue.

3.3 Hesketh with Becconsall and Tarleton Action Group (12.12.13) – Provided a copy of the request to be involved in the master-planning exercise referenced by the Planning Inspector considering the land allocation of the site in the Local Plan review. The letter is accompanied with a petition of 90 signatures supporting this request.

3.4 Hesketh with Becconsall and Tarleton Action Group (24.01.14) – A detailed objection has been received that cannot be replicated in full here; the full document can be viewed at: http://www.westlancs.gov.uk/planning/planning_control.aspx using the 2013/1258 and received date. The main points raised include: Proposals constitute overdevelopment of the site The development should be considered in the context of recent developments and planning approvals in the area rather than in isolation No masterplanning exercise has taken place therefore the development conflicts with Policy EC3 in the WLLP The developer has not carried out any meaningful consultation with local groups / representatives No evidence of housing need is demonstrated Poor design response to local context / distinctiveness and use of standard house types Opportunity to retain some existing buildings has not been explored The development will have a significant adverse impact on over-capacity infrastructure ref: road, water supply & drainage The development, in conjunction with other recent/proposed developments could result in a doubling of traffic on the local roads Non-delivery of the Linear Park makes the Travel Plan proposals submitted undeliverable Agree to the recycling of existing brownfield area is appropriate in principle subject to associated infrastructure improvement requirements The development will adversely affect and result in the loss of protected species habitat Loss of agricultural land Limited real open space provision Adverse impact on highway capacity and safety, road drainage and emergency vehicle access The development is unsustainable and will rely on 95% car reliance Incomplete traffic surveys Potential for public transport use/improvement overstated All local services located on main spine road so car journeys focus here Insufficient school places Little drainage detail provided on a susceptible site Drainage proposed to newt ponds has not been assessed No consideration of the impact on water supply capacity and drainage capacity following recent development approvals or upcoming fracking activities

3.5 Hesketh with Becconsall and Tarleton Action Group (08.05.14) – Comment on the applicant’s response to concerns raised by LCC Ecologist dated 31.01.14. Main issued raised are that there should be no requirement for further justification of the BHS sites; what is the evidence of cattle grazing in the BHS and no evidence that cattle grazing has impacted on the biodiversity of the site; a new GCN licence will be required; what will be the specific impact of the protection and management measures to the population of GCN’s? type of mitigation planting not specified, nor is maintenance; mesh fencing inappropriate; who is monitoring GCN population on the site and how will this be done in the future?; the creation of a third new pond for GCN should be agreed with Natural England before planning permission granted; more details required for maintenance of GCN population; 10 years is too long for review of proposed Habitats Management Plan; concerns about trapping data; impact on overwintering fowl on the lake not addressed; more details on commitment to management of the river corridor as a linear park required and impact on environment. Applicant has not adequately answered LCC concerns.

3.6 Hesketh with Becconsall and Tarleton Action Group (09.07.14) – Re-iterate previous objections made 24.01.14 and add the following main points:

Insufficient infrastructure and services to support a development of this scale The need for this level of residential development has not been established for the site The proposed development will not contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution There are no improvements that can be undertaken with the transport network that will cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. The only public transport through Hesketh Bank is a bus which runs once an hour and upgrading this service will increase traffic volumes The proposed development will result in too much density, massing and a lack of landscape on the site, contrary to the NPPF Hesketh Lane is inaccurately shown as Station Road on the plan The existing bus shelter is shown as being re-located but is not documented where to The site affects a right of way which does not appear on the plan No provision made to develop the Light Railway The three existing chimneys on the site should be retained In changing the application to outline, the applicant had the opportunity to conduct a proper masterplanning exercise but this has not happened. The application does not address the southern area’s Area of Local Importance and Linear Park designations Residential development is excluded within the Coast Zone No need for building houses on the greenfield site There needs to be evidence that the employment site is deliverable to comply with Policy EC3 and the housing on the southern part of the site will take agricultural land out of production There is a real danger that the employment site will not come forward due to viability and contamination The type and extent of contamination on the brownfield site is not known and outline approval should be refused until satisfactory results are obtained from a thorough intrusive investigation.

3.7 Hesketh with Becconsall and Tarleton Action Group (29.07.14) – Perplexed with regard to removing the upper limit of 275 dwellings from the application. Without an upper figure for the number of dwellings proposed, how will potential impact be assessed on areas protected by local and national policy? How can estimated impact be assessed? How can sustainability be established? How can masterplanning be judged to have taken place? The intent remains to maximise housing at the expense of public open space, coastal zone, BHS, habitats and the Linear Park. Appropriate conditions and exclusions should be attached to any approval in order to protect important land designations and habitats. Re- iterate great concern regarding land affected by contamination.

4.1 West Lancashire Light Railway (03.07.14 and 28.03.14) - Concerned as to the future of the Railway as no confirmation of the applicant’s intentions for the Railway have been received in writing. The application currently does not show how the following will be provided on a permanent basis:

Access to our site for the public and HGVs for occasional deliveries.

Car parking for 65 vehicles

Replacement toilet facilities (our existing toilets are within the area shown for proposed housing).

Main services on suitable routes (the proposals are likely to disrupt current service routes).

Boundary treatments from the point of view of security, screening, aesthetics and ownership.

Potential for expansion of the Railway

The issue of security of tenure is a key theme that relates to everything else. Without this we cannot become the stronger and better quality visitor amenity that we really need to be. In addition to the extension of the Railway we have goals which do not directly relate to the current application but which would involve investment in upgrading our site, together with museum buildings and good quality displays of our heritage assets within a landscaped setting. These plans would deliver an interesting and strongly educational facility with added value for the local community and economy.

We operate under a licence from the land owner and have a lawful planning use. We have invested a lot of money, time and effort into a heritage resource which is unique in the North West and which is an asset to the village and Borough. We are looking to the application to present the Railway as an amenity within the Linear Park and which anchors and enhances the Park. These plans have been worked through within the Park Steering Group and the feasibility work it commissioned a few years ago. At the beginning of last year, this Group met the developer and passed relevant information over. In October similar comments were made to Persimmon’s draft masterplan. The feasibility study undertaken for the Linear Park shows that the Railway and its extension is a core element. In the absence of the masterplanning exercise, the application itself should bring the variety of existing and proposed uses together within a single design and which can demonstrate overall sustainability. We have worked hard to develop a scheme to deliver the Railway’s goals which is in all respects feasible and recognises the basic template of housing that Persimmon have presented so as to ensure that conflicts are avoided and that Persimmon’s aspirations would not be challenged by us.

It is relevant to point out that we have been working with the Council and other stakeholders since the early 1990s on the Linear Park where the regeneration of the brickworks site is key to its delivery. Throughout this period, the Council has been consistent in its policy that the site regeneration has to be planned in a thorough and complete way which ensures that the existing and future land uses work well together and that there are no loose ends.

The issue of funding for our goals is a matter for the Railway and not a planning matter. It is well known that we will be seeking external grant funding for enhancing the Railway and that such funding is always dependent upon being able to demonstrate long-term security of use of the land needed. Funding should not therefore be a gateway issue to be passed through by us ahead of agreement being reached on security of use of land and how the existing and proposed uses within the overall site will relate to each other within the application.

Our plans are well developed and we are capable of moving at the pace dictated by the other matters within the application. We are confident of the realism and viability of our plans and that we will be able to secure the external funding we will need once we are able to demonstrate that we have appropriate security on the use of land.

We are confident that the goals of the various parties are not mutually exclusive. With goodwill our plans, the aims of the Council and others can we feel be brought together into a good quality overall scheme for this site which can deliver the outcomes Persimmon and Altys are seeking.

3.9 Southport Fly Fishers (23.03.14 and 30.12.13) – Proposed development lies over existing drainage that includes migratory route for eels between lake and river Loss of fishing Club’s hut, boat store and car park Access to the lake and facilities will be removed Potential impact of lake ecology arising from construction and use of the development Future management of the lake in doubt/unclear Lake should be fenced off for security and management purposes Proposed public access could adversely affect the existing fishing and management of the lake due to existing ground conditions, topography and drainage; provision of a pathway will significantly degrade existing habitat value about the lake Raised pathway around lake will present numerous benefits Although many of the above concerns have been discussed verbally with the applicant and agreement reached, no formal written arrangements have been provided.

3.10 Friends of Becconsall Old Church (27.06.14 and 05.01.14) – Emphasise the strong community interest in the site from Friends of Becconsall Church, West Lancs Light Railway, Becconsall Boat Yard and the Fly Fishers. It is essential that their interests are not only protected but development facilitated for the benefit of the whole community. The proposals should ensure the West Lancs Light Railway aspiration to extend the line to the River Douglas and provision of new amenities is assured and through the progression of the proposed Linear Park, both north and south of the site, a long term public amenity is provided which improves access for the Old Church as the single public heritage attraction in the village. Community benefits should be secured by clear and binding conditions.

3.11 159 representations were received to the original hybrid application from individual parties objecting/raising concerns and 82 representations have been received objecting to the amended outline proposal (most of which are from parties that objected originally). Objections can be summarised as follows:

Highways

Area serviced by a single road - Hesketh Lane turning into Station Road from the main A49 that already becomes very congested at peak times and another 275 houses could see up to 550 vehicles using that route, plus any additional use generated by visitors, suppliers etc. Rapid road wear and tear Congestion will slow emergency response times Additional traffic unsustainable Exacerbation of congestion at school drop-off/pick-up times Station Rd/ Hesketh Lane too narrow Detrimental to highway safety especially in vicinity of schools and children / wheelchair users using the narrow pathways and cycling to school Additional conflict with HGVs and tractors having to use Station Rd/Hesketh La. Congestion at Coe Lane Will compound the effect of the development of Tarleton Mill in traffic terms Development will exacerbate the impact of the current mini roundabout, pedestrian crossing, busy T-junction and hump-backed railway bridge all within a 50m/100metre stretch. Will lead to rat-running on side roads esp. Kearsley Avenue Road link across river should be provided Unlikely that occupants will be local residents with local jobs – generating more traffic No pedestrian access from northern site to village centre Local parking already limited Road proposals little or no effect as problem relates to volume of traffic Alternative use of moss roads unrealistic Unclear how pavement between the northern site access and Booths will be provided Parking along strategic route exacerbates congestion and further limits narrow pedestrian access Recent developments have overstretched local resources and roadway not designed for the amount of traffic Access via Astland Gardens not acceptable – conflicting evidence provided Green Lane Link will do little to offset traffic impacts Developer should fund Green Lane Link Fracking traffic will add to highway safety concerns and congestion Difficult to see what benefit will be offered to traffic on Hesketh Lane by a mini- roundabout at its junction with Church Rd References to local public transport and footway provision are incorrect and overstated Public transport services poor in the locality Mini roundabout unlikely to be successful and exacerbate traffic vibration impacts Public transport will exacerbate traffic problems No genuine likelihood of residents using closest railways Will development require relocation of bus stop? Application places pedestrians and cyclists at a lower priority to car users No corridor for projected cycle route along the Preston-Southport Railway Journey to work from home is currently almost 90% car based here and set to remain (amongst the highest nationally) Unrealistic measures suggested for minimising traffic (homeworking, public transport use etc.) Should be additional access via Astland Gardens Cumulative traffic generation including recent development and approved schemes has not been considered Incomplete highway survey data for additional junctions and proposed mini roundabout Junction of Church Lane with Hesketh Lane is narrow already and would not be widened in order to cater for the proposed roundabout. The pavements around the roundabout are extremely narrow and there is a long section of dropped kerb adjacent to the Charity shop (no.116), which makes pedestrians vulnerable to vehicles mounting the kerb especially as the roadway is so narrow and use by large vehicles The junction geometry would reduce visibility when emerging from Hesketh Lane Traffic signals at Hesketh Lane/Church Rd may be better option Insufficient assessment of impacts, extent of and management of construction traffic Insufficient parking provided on the site Proposed dwelling to the head of Astland Gardens results in a third point of access to the site – supporting documentation refers only to two points of access. Accounting of builder's merchant traffic is incorrect as this use has ceased at this site The development will generate a very large carbon footprint related to car based transport. The masterplanning ought to have identified this and demonstrate how other aspects of the proposals can be seen to provide some offset for this Development should deliver parking, toilets and possibly visitor centre for linear park No corridor for projected cycle route along the Preston-Southport Railway No visitor parking for railway

Masterplanning

Application should be put on hold pending masterplanning exercise Masterplan ignores Linear Park feasibility study No significant masterplanning exercise undertaken Hybrid approach undermines the 'master plan' intentions of Local Plan policy EC3 Disappointing that the masterplanning exercise has not flagged up the opportunity to use the route of the former Southport to Preston railway as a west – east, green corridor

Infrastructure

Village to town with insufficient infrastructure Will increase the frequency of power failures Schools in the area appear to be at capacity. Waiting times at Doctors and Dentists would also indicate over subscription. Will development generate upgrade of broadband system Insufficient Infrastructure capacity No community facilities proposed No play area included

Drainage/Water supply

Exacerbate existing low water pressure Surface water flooding during heavy downpours due to lack of drainage capacity Lower part of the site will be subject to flooding as experienced by the boatyard Dec.13 Potential for sewer flooding – United Utilities already aware of capacity problems Effluent flooding due to high water table leads to contamination Insufficient Water supply, Drains & Sewers Regular raw sewage flooding events Insufficient info on drainage & drainage problems The site often suffers surface water flooding and ponding Biodiversity

Great Crested Newt and bat habitat on site. Colony of GCN in garden of 284 Hesketh Lane Disturbance to wildlife Irreversible damage to local ecology Land used by birds and wildlife Split tree on Greenfield suitable for bats Significant removal of trees Encroaches into BHS land Encroaches onto Great Crested Newt feeding habitat Area C designated as public open space is protected newt habitat Migratory birds and protected species utilise the Greenfield Lack of detail on protection of newt ponds & management of nature conservation area Dwellings too close to Great Crested Newt core habitat Proposal conflicts with Booths management agreement for Great Crested Newts Impact of surface waters on newt ponds has not been considered Ecological connectivity and foraging habitat for Great Crested Newts will be adversely affected Development would impact on two biological heritage sites Loss of Environmentally important Green Space

Linear Park

No green corridors linking lake with parkland No visitor parking provided for linear park Insufficient open space for Linear Park gateway Linear park welcome but large park preferable Linear park proposals jeopardised by lack of consultation by the applicant on masterplan The application overstates its relevance to the Northern Gateway and the Linear Park Feasibility Study for the Linear Park at Tarleton and Hesketh Bank not referenced in the masterplanning or design documents There is no delivery of the linear park so it cannot be factored in within the transport assessment Area designated as linear park is already a linear park

Residential development

Unimaginative scheme - lost opportunity to enhance village character Car and bin dominated development Insufficient buffer to adjacent countryside No local housing need No real affordable housing being delivered for local need Overshadowing / loss of light Excessive development density Scale of development would prejudice small local developers Poorly planned and crammed scheme Loss of privacy House designs don’t reflect local character and are town houses rather than appropriate to the village. Dwellings excessive in scale and overbearing No eco-friendly designs Loss of outlook Overdevelopment in a low density development area Use of inappropriate generic housetypes Loss of rural view Unit at the head of Astland Gardens out of keeping with local character

Application process

Application is invalid - inaccuracies on form, no dimensions to plans, no tree plots, no hard surface types, no boundary treatments, no detail of materials, no levels, insufficient drainage details/no sustainable drainage systems proposed, no landscaping scheme, no interpretation graphics, no streetscene elevations, no engineering drawings for proposed junction works No different to 2005 refused application Insufficient information provided to determine the application No real public consultation by developer Limited time for responses Plans not up to date – exclude recent developments Land ownership issues

Community

Development constrains the existing railway leaving no potential for enhancement/improvement No community benefit Loss of village community spirit Scale of development will overwhelm village Recent developments have reduced quality of life in the locality Will result in demise of light railway Proposal equivalent to 15% increase in settlement No enhancement of Light Railway Local context not referenced in design of the development Interests of the railway should be protected at all stages Railway should be extended Significant opportunity to enhance light railway as a Borough asset Coastal Zone and south area of site

Last remnant of boulder clay cliff will be lost Loss of important historical landscape to south of the site Contrary to Policy EN2.5 – Coastal Zone Development in coastal zone Land includes one of few remaining unspoiled examples of a Boulder Clay Cliff and is of major Geological value to the County Development will encroach onto this riverside walk and take away the character and openness of this beautiful coastal zone

Employment

Development should deliver employment opportunities to encourage new local job creation Noise from employment area Non compliant with EC3 as residential development only Questionable that industrial / commercial uses should be considered on this site – sustainability and transport generation Development will result in a net loss of employment Housing development should cross-fund employment development Likely loss of existing employment uses with no replacement employment facilities No permanent employment generation

Other Matters

Site should be protected as a non-designated historical asset Development precludes any future opportunity to link the settlement with the A59 along the old railway line route Construction phase excessive and disruptive for seven years Proposals may exacerbate garden landslides on Becconsall Lane Unsustainable Increase in fear of crime, no police presence No provision of eco-friendly measures Development should be limited to the development to the Brownfield area only Landscape impact from Mill Farm not considered Industrial area is former landfill and should not be built on Issues of contamination and possible methane emission have not been thoroughly addressed Unreasonable 7 year construction phase Likely gas migration from tip site Development conflicts with the Human Rights Act Noise and general disturbance Insufficient public open space – limited paths only More should be left as green areas and greenspaces improved Brownfield development should be phased first to avoid picking off a greenfield site with no subsequent delivery of the remaining development Noise arising from use of the access Greenfield part of the site should not be developed

3.12 Two letters of general support have been received but expressing concerns in respect of the masterplanning process and missed opportunities but welcoming job creation and the provision of housing in the area.

4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

4.1 The application is supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment (ES), which essentially provides an evaluation of the following:

Planning Policy Traffic and Transport Ecology and Nature Conservation Landscape and Visual Hydrology and Flooding Geology, Soils and Hydrogeology Socio-Economics Cumulative Assessment

Alongside the ES, the following additional supporting information has been submitted:

Design and Access Statement Statement of Community Engagement Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement Tree Survey Report Heritage Assessment

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027) (WLLP) provide the policy framework against which the development will be assessed.

5.2 The site is allocated as EC3 – Rural Development Opportunity site in the Local Plan. The site also includes the following designations: EN2.1 Nature Conservation Sites/Major Wildlife Corridor EN2.5 Coastal Zone EN2.6 Landscape of Local History Importance IF2.1 Linear Park 5.3 Relevant West Lancashire Local Plan policies: SP1 – A Sustainable Development Framework for West Lancashire GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Design of Development GN4 – Demonstrating Viability EC3 – Rural Development Opportunities RS1 – Residential Development RS2 – Affordable and Specialist Housing IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choice IF3 – Service Accessibility and Infrastructure for Growth IF4 – Developer Contributions EN1 – Low Carbon Development and Energy Infrastructure EN2 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Natural Environment EN3 – Provision of Green Infrastructure and Open Recreation Space EN4 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Built Environment

In addition the following supplementary documents are material considerations:

SPD – Design Guide (Jan 2008); SPD - Open Space/Recreational Provision in New Residential Developments (April 2009); and, Planning Obligations in Lancashire

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

6.1 The site comprises an area of approximately 16.77 hectares of land within the key sustainable village of Hesketh Bank. The site is bound to the north by the rear of properties along Becconsall Lane and to the east by Bullenswood, the Douglas Boatyard and the River Douglas. The southern boundary is denoted by an open watercourse with a small field and residential development beyond. The western boundary comprises a mix of residential properties, leading off Greenways, Astland Gardens, Station Road, Mill Lane and Booths supermarket.

6.2 The site is irregular in shape and is essentially divided into three distinctive areas. The northern part of the site comprises a large lake with surrounding woodland (subject to a Tree Preservation Order) and shrubby vegetation. The lake is stocked and fished in a low intensity way by Southport Fly Fishers, who have a jetty and a number of fishing pegs as well as an access track and storage shed in the north-east corner of the site. This part of the site falls within the Hesketh Bank Brickworks North (Alty’s) Biological Heritage Site. 6.3 The central part of the site forms the previously developed land occupied by Alty’s. Initially the business was based on the manufacture of bricks and other related products. However, brick production ceased in the late 1960’s since when the core business has been the sale and supply of building, landscape and horticultural supplies. There is an assortment of buildings on the site, mostly fairly old and in poor condition (brick and corrugated sheet) and there is one tall brick chimney on the site. Some of the buildings are leased out to other businesses. This part of the site also contains West Lancashire Light Railway, a small heritage railway/tourist facility.

6.4 The southern half of the site is a greenfield area, the northern section of which incorporates a vegetated area and Great Crested Newt mitigation ponds (required as mitigation for displacement of GCN’s on the Booths site). This area forms the Hesketh Bank Brickworks South Biological Heritage Site and the Coastal Zone. The southern section of the greenfield site is grazing land and rented to a tenant farmer. This part of the site slopes steeply down towards the River Douglas to the west and also to the south. The third Biological Heritage Site located within the application site is along the eastern edge – the River Douglas Corridor BHS.

The Proposal

6.5 The application has been amended since first submitted, from a hybrid application (indicating full details for the residential development of up to 275 dwellings and an area reserved for employment land in outline) to a wholly outline application. The submitted contextual masterplan indicates that the southern part of the site will include residential development, the central Hesketh Bank Brickworks South BHS will be retained and the northern half of the site will comprise a mix of BHS, fishing lake, West Lancashire Light Railway, residential development and employment development; the extent of which is subject to future agreement at Reserved Matters stage.

Principle of Development

National Planning Policy Framework

6.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was issued on 27th March 2012 and this sets out the Government’s planning polices for England and is a material consideration in planning decisions. It advocates that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, by performing an economic, social and environmental role. The implementation section of the NPPF states (paragraph 215) that the weight that can be given the relevant polices in local plans will be proportionate to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Significant weight can therefore be given to relevant polices in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD (Local Plan) because the Local Plan has only recently been adopted (Oct 2013) and is consistent with the NPPF. 6.7 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In order to deliver a wide choice of housing and employment, the NPPF advocates the importance of meeting locally identified need/demand and ensuring a rolling five year supply of deliverable housing sites to meet these requirements. Consistent with NPPF’s approach, the recently adopted Local Plan allocates the site for mixed use development, including housing. The proposed development is therefore consistent with the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

6.8 On more details matters, the NPPF establishes the role of transport policies in facilitating sustainable development and advises that development with the potential to generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Assessment. Furthermore, the NPPF makes clear that new development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. At paragraph 109, the NPPF outlines how the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting landscapes, minimising impact on biodiversity, protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land, conserving the historic environment and avoiding unacceptable risk from soil, air, water or noise pollution.

Rural Development Opportunity Site

6.9 The site is allocated as a Rural Development Opportunity site (Policy EC3) in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD (Local Plan). Under the terms of Policy EC3 the redevelopment of specific allocated brownfield sites for mixed uses, including housing, will be permitted in order to stimulate the rural economy. Within the mix of uses, the policy anticipates uses falling into classes B1, B2 and B8; wider employment generating uses where these are demonstrated to deliver new jobs; and residential development – particularly those meeting an identified local need; leisure, recreational and community uses; and, essential services and infrastructure. In the interests of the rural economy, employment generating uses will be required to form part of any proposal, the level of which will be determined on a site-by-site basis and in accordance with national and local planning policy.

6.10 Policy EC3 also specifies that on the Alty’s site, not all of the site will comprise built development and a masterplanning exercise will be required.

6.11 The outline planning application would appear to satisfy Policy EC3 in respect of the mixture of uses proposed on the site, given that flexibility is built into the proposal which would allow some employment uses as well as residential, tourism and leisure uses and retention of the Hesketh Bank Brickworks South BHS. It will be critical to ensure that any Reserved Matters application clearly details the split between the uses and any phasing mechanism required to ensure the delivery of employment generating uses on the site. It is essential that some employment-generating uses are delivered before all housing on the site is implemented so that the site is truly developed as the sustainable, mixed- use scheme intended by Policy EC3.

6.12 In relation to the requirement to prepare a masterplan, I note that the hybrid planning application submission originally included a masterplan of the site, except the area for employment. A draft masterplan was subject to public consultation in March 2013 and the applicant has engaged the Council, Parish Councils and other stakeholders and regulatory bodies. There is no set definition of what constitutes a masterplan or how a masterplaning exercise should be conducted and whilst the masterplan submitted does not provide full details of the development of the site, the actual submission of a planning application has meant that the process of masterplanning the site can begin with setting broad parameters for a sustainable mixed development on the site. The details submitted are considered sufficient to give a clear overview of the masterplan for the site.

6.13 I am satisfied that the outline proposal includes all elements required by Policy EC3 and is therefore acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with all other relevant policies pertaining to the site.

Nature Conservation Site

6.14 The site includes greenfield areas which are also covered by other policies. Three areas within the site are designated as Biological Heritage Sites, subject to Policy EN2.1 (Nature Conservation Sites/Major Wildlife Corridor), which advises that development that would directly or indirectly affect any sites of local importance will be permitted only where it is necessary to meet an overriding local public need or where it is in relation to the purposes of the nature conservation site.

6.15 The outline contextual masterplan indicates that the River Douglas Corridor BHS and the Hesketh Bank Brickworks South BHS will remain untouched by built development. The Hesketh Bank Brickworks North BHS covers a significant area and it is likely that some of this BHS will be affected by built development; however, the location and extent of such development is not known at this stage and will be determined at Reserved Matters stage when the impact on this BHS will be further informed by additional ecological surveys and potential mitigation and compensation strategies. The impact of any proposed development on this site and the implications for compliance with the NPPF and Policy EN2 along with the Habitats Regulations is assessed in more detail later in this report. In terms of the principle of the proposed development, since the application is in outline only, I am satisfied that the mixed use of the site, incorporating part or all of the nature conservation sites, with mitigation or enhancement informed by further survey work, can be achieved. As such, the principle of the proposed development on nature conservation is acceptable. Coastal Zone 6.16 Policy EN2.5 of the Local Plan states that “development within the Borough’s Coastal Zones will be limited to that which is essential in meeting the needs of coastal navigation, amenity and informal recreation, tourism and leisure, flood protection, fisheries, nature conservation and/or agriculture. Development will not be allowed which would allow the loss of secondary sea embankments. Development in Marine Areas must be in line with the Marine Policy Statement and Marine Plans.” Residential development is proposed within the coastal zone, which is clearly contrary to this policy in principle. However, it should be noted that the Marine Management Organisation do not object to the proposed development and further discussion on this matter can be found later in this report.

Landscape Character

6.17 The southern half of the site lies within an landscape character area of local importance (as opposed to regional or county importance). Policy EN2.6 of the Local Plan requires that development has regard to the different landscape character types across the Borough and development should maintain or enhance the distinctive character and quality of the area; respect the historic character of the local landscape and complement any attractive attributes of its surroundings. It is important to note that the designation of a Landscape Character Area in itself does not preclude development upon it, merely that any such development should have regard to that particular landscape character. The principle of development upon this area is considered acceptable provided that any future layout and design takes account of its particular landscape character.

Linear Park

6.18 Policy IF2.1a)ix) of the Local Plan also applies to this site in that the Council has stated its support for the delivery of, and not allow development which would prejudice the delivery of, the provision of a linear park between Tarleton and Hesketh Bank. The eastern flank of the site abuts the River Douglas and an existing public footpath along the river edge. The proposed development, whilst being outline only, does indicate that, within the red edge of the site, opportunity is clearly available to create a wide landscaped strip of land for future use as a linear park. The exact details of delivery and future maintenance of this element and its link with the lake at the northern end of the site can be dealt with by way of a Reserved Matters application and through the use of appropriately worded conditions and/or S106 Agreement and Community Infrastructure Levy funding. In principle, the proposed development would not prejudice the delivery a linear park and is therefore considered acceptable.

Access, Traffic and Highways 6.19 Access to the northern half of the site is proposed off Station Road, utilising the existing access to Alty’s and the West Lancashire Railway but up-grading it to a mini roundabout. It is proposed to extend the existing footway along the eastern side of Station Road from where it currently ends north past the Booths store, over the bridge and into the site. It is also proposed to provide dropped kerbs across Station Road. LCC Highways are satisfied that this access is satisfactory provided that adequate parking and access to the employment area is resolved at Reserved Matters stage.

6.20 Access to the southern part of the site is proposed via a new priority junction between 264 and 266 Station Road and includes 2m footways either side of the junction and the relocation of the existing southbound bus shelter. No further vehicular access is proposed to the site. Again, LCC Highways consider that this proposed access is acceptable to meet the needs of this part of the site, which is unlikely to connect by motorised vehicles to the north part of the site due to the constraints of the Hesketh Bank Brickworks South BHS and Great Crested Newt mitigation area.

6.21 LCC recognise that there are a number of existing issues on the current highway network, particularly along Station Road between the site and Mill Lane, around the local shopping area. There are a significant number of HGV’s, conflict points (access and crossings) and on-street parking issues. The development has the potential to exacerbate the current conditions unless there is a strong package of measures to support sustainable transport. LCC advise that the improvements to the site access do not mitigate the additional traffic impact from this development alone. However, other improvements to the network are proposed which go some way to mitigate the local highway impact. These include the provision of a mini-roundabout at the Hesketh Lane/Church Road junction in Tarleton; a contribution towards a review of the signalised junction on the A59 and A565; a contribution towards the planned “Green Lane Link Road” ( a new HGV route in the locality); a contribution towards bus stop improvements; a contribution towards the Linear Park (for pedestrian and cycle usage) and the introduction of a travel plan and its monitoring. The contribution requests would be delivered by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charged on the development. Providing the CIL contributes towards the delivery of the above mitigation measures (apart from the new mini-roundabout at Hesketh Lane/Church Road which will be delivered through a S278 Agreement), LCC Highways consider that the proposed development will not significantly affect the local highway network as the residual cumulative impacts of the development will not be severe or compromise overall safety.

6.22 As part of any reserved matters development proposals it will be expected that the scheme will provide road infrastructure to an adoptable standard with a design speed of 20 mph. Parking provision on the site will be expected to meet Joint Lancashire Structure Plan policy requirements. Overall, I am satisfied that provided the measures outlined above regarding highway improvements are implemented consistent with each phase of development, the proposal will provide safe sustainable accessibility for different modes of transport, in accordance with the NPPF, Policies GN3 and IF2 of the Local Plan.

Surface Water, Drainage and Flood Risk

6.23 In terms of drainage, there are three main issues on this site. Firstly, it is known that there are water supply issues in the Hesketh Bank area with low water pressure in many areas; secondly, the foul water system is at capacity; and thirdly, there is potential for flood risk adjacent to the tidal River Douglas. The statutory bodies assessing the impact of the proposed development on the above matters (United Utilities (UU), Environment Agency (EA) and LCC Flood Risk Management)) have been closely involved in liaison with the applicant and their drainage consultant. None of these bodies raise objections to the proposal.

6.24 In terms of water supply, UU have confirmed that, as noted at the examination in public into the Local Plan, the Northern Parishes are characterised by a significant market garden economy, which draw off significant quantities of water and place a significant strain on water supply in the area. Despite this UU is currently within the standards of service required for water supply in the Northern Parishes and has installed flow modulating valves which has had a positive effect. In the context of the proposed new development UU is undertaking engineering exercises to identify and deliver a solution for water supply in the area and it is intended that this be delivered co-ordinated as new development is brought forward in the area and will be constructed over a number of years.

6.25 UU support the provision of houses which include water efficiencies as required by Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and which helps manage the impact on UU infrastructure.

6.26 With regards wastewater, UU have stated that surface water flows are very large compared with foul flows and as a result they use up a lot of capacity in the infrastructure and as such, alternatives to the use of public sewers by surface water significantly minimises the likelihood of sewers flooding and reduces the need to treat surface water. It is noted that the applicant intends to discharge surface water via a surface water sewer that passes through the site, which then discharges directly to the River Douglas. This is considered to reduce pressure on the existing combined public sewerage system and UU wastewater infrastructure and as such, allows for additional foul water within the system. Due to the topography of the site, it is proposed that the development will be served by two foul water pumping stations: the station serving the north part of the site discharging to the existing sewer in Station Road and the station serving the southern part of the site discharging to the existing sewer in Astland Gardens. 6.27 In terms of surface water and flood risk, it is important to ensure that the proposed development conforms to the NPPF and Policy IF3 of the Local Plan in terms of sustainable urban drainage. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment indicates that, given the soil conditions at the site, an outfall for surface water to the River Douglas, with attenuation and source control methods, is the preferred option. In this location, the EA required the applicant to demonstrate that tide locking was taken into account (i.e. that when the tide was high, the surface water outfall was designed adequately to restrict water “backing-up” into the system) and that the 1 in 100 year plus climate change storm event could be stored on site. A revised Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted which takes this into account and which the EA now consider to be acceptable, provided that finished floor levels on the site are set no lower than 150mm above existing ground levels. There is a historic watercourse running west to east across the site and further investigation is required to assess whether or not this is now redundant. If not, then details of it’s potential to be included within the surface water drainage proposals for the site should be investigated. Protection and long-term maintenance for the existing open watercourse along the southern boundary of the site should be provided. All these matters can be resolved by condition.

Biodiversity and Trees

6.28 To achieve sustainable development, the planning system should seek environmental gains, should contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural environment and help to improve biodiversity. The NPPF states that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the natural environment, including moving from a net loss of biodiversity to achieving net gains for nature (NPPF Para 6-10).

6.29 The development of this site will inevitably affect the existing biodiversity value of the site, since much of the land has been left to naturalise over time. Other parts of the site are used for grazing, which brings with it a certain kind of habitat. Any development on the land must be carried out in such a way that biodiversity value and conservation and enhancement of the natural environment are achieved. Under the terms of Policy EN2 in the Local Plan development proposals must seek to avoid impacts on significant ecological assets and protect and improve the biodiversity value of sites. If significant impacts on biodiversity are unavoidable, then mitigation or as a last resort, compensation, are required to fully offset impacts. As stated previously, there are three BHS’s within the site and it is clear that the Hesketh Bank Brickworks South BHS would need to be adequately protected during development and the lifetime of the development as this is a mitigation area for Great Crested Newts. Surveys of the site have been carried out in respect of protected species, an extended phase 1 habitat survey, a vegetation survey and tree survey. 6.30 As a result of serious concerns about the impact of proposed development at this site from the County Ecologist, the scheme has been amended from a hybrid application to an outline application. Whilst this does not provide any detailed certainty about how the site will be developed at the present time, it does allow for further consideration of how any future layout of the site should take into account the constraints of the BHS’s.

6.31 The ecological information has identified that a large part of the site has a high bat roosting potential, a building has barn owl roosting potential and development on part of the site may affect Great Crested Newts. On this basis, it is found that the proposed works may result in a breach of Habitats Directive as the development of the site and would result in the removal of substantial areas of foraging and roosting habitat and therefore a likely breach of Article 12 of the Habitats Directive. Article 12 of the Habitats Directive contains a range of prohibitions seeking to protect certain species (European Protected Species). Prohibitions under Article 12 (1) include, inter alia, the deliberate disturbance or destructions of a breeding site a resting place of such an animal. Article 16 of the Habitats Regulations provides for a number of circumstances in which a Member State may derogate from the obligations in Article 12 and the derogations contained in Article 16 are implemented by way of licensing regime (operated by Natural England under Regulation 53 of the Habitat Regulations). An activity that would otherwise be an offence will be lawful if it is carried out in accordance with a licence.

6.32 Regulation 9 (3) of the Habitats Regulations provides that ‘a competent authority, in exercising any of their functions, must have regard to the requirements of the Directive so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions’. West Lancashire Borough Council is a competent authority for the purposes of these Regulations. The outcome of the Morge case, in the Supreme Court, makes it clear what is expected of a Local Planning Authority in exercising its duty under regulation 9 of the Habitat Regulations in that if the Local Planning Authority concludes that the carrying out of the development for which permission has been applied for, even if it were to be conditioned, would be likely to breach Article 12 (1), by say causing the disturbance of a species, then it must consider the likelihood of a licence being granted. The Local Planning Authority must therefore consider the three tests given in the Habitats Directive:

i) the development will preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; and ii) there is no satisfactory alternative; and iii) the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. 6.33 There are no accepted definitions of the above terminology and Natural England confirms that each case will be judged on its own merits. In addition Circular 01/2005 (paragraph 99) advises that in appropriate circumstances, where a European protected species would be affected, a planning condition may be imposed preventing a development from proceeding without prior acquisition of a license from Natural England. In addition I note that Natural England applies the tests on a proportionate basis i.e. the justification required increases with the severity of the impact on the species or population concerned and it is not just the impact on the local population of protected species but any knock on effects on the wider population must also be considered.

6.34 With respect to the first test, the applicant has stated that the public benefits of the proposed development are numerous and relate to a social and economic nature. The land has been identified as being suitable for a mixed use development in order to aid house building construction in the area and create an opportunity to a enhance leisure and more modern employment generating uses to benefit the local population. In terms of social benefits, the site is located within a sustainable location and its future occupants are likely to invest in the local community. The proposed development would provide improvements to the local environment with the removal of vacant, unused buildings along with the provision of on-site public open space and recreational routes through the site to surrounding areas. Given these circumstances and in the absence of a definitive interpretation of the terminology within the first test, I am satisfied that the potential benefits of the proposed development are satisfactory.

6.35 With respect to the second test, Natural England, within their standing advice on this matter, state that it should be recognised that there are always going to be alternatives to a proposal and it is for Natural England to determine that a reasonable level of effort has been expended in the search for alternative means of achieving the development whilst minimising the impact on the identified Protected Species. Given the circumstances in this case, there are no obvious alternatives to the proposed development. The main use previously undertaken on the site (brickworks) has ceased. Due to the age, condition and layout of most of the existing buildings they are not considered to be appropriate for conversion. With the exception of redeveloping the land, it is accepted that the land would remain unused, failing to regenerate the local area and provide an opportunity for community benefits. Therefore I do not consider that there are satisfactory alternatives to the removal of the existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site and I am satisfied that the second test of the Habitat Regulations has been met.

6.36 In respect of the third test, as the application is on outline only and the parameters of development have not been fully established, through the imposition of a suitably worded condition, I am satisfied that the proposed development is capable of maintaining the population of the species at a favourable conservation status. Furthermore no development can take place until such time as a Natural England license has been obtained and in accordance with Circular 01/2005 a suitable condition will be imposed in this respect.

6.37 In terms of the NPPF and Policy EN2 of the Local Plan, the River Corridor BHS is very narrow and I feel unaffected by the proposed development considering that it is already a public footpath. It could be argued that this ecological corridor may be strengthened through sensitive design of the proposed Linear Park, which would allow a wider managed landscape close to the BHS. The central BHS area is indicated on the illustrative layout, as remaining untouched. This amendment to the original submitted plan is welcomed, although impacts relating to a BHS occur around the site of the BHS not just upon it, and careful integration of urbanisation and biodiversity protection and enhancement will be paramount at the Reserved Matters design stage. This applies to the northern BHS also, as full details of the split between BHS, residential and employment uses are not known but will be informed by further detailed survey work, mitigation and enhancement and Habitat Management Plans. There is no doubt that in this area, some existing vegetation will be removed but it is not clear whether or not bat foraging and commuting or barn owl roosting and foraging habitat would be maintained and enhanced as part of these proposals; however, the application is seeking approval of the principle of development only and therefore this will need to be demonstrated at the reserved matters stage. This is likely to require vegetated green corridors to be included through the site. This may well affect the amount and/or density of achievable housing delivery and given this potential it is anticipated that a balance in terms of retention and offset biodiversity asset will be achievable across the site.

6.38 There are numerous trees across this site of varying age and condition. The northern half of the site around the lake is covered by a Tree Preservation Order ref: 1/2005 (Trees and Woodland south of Becconsall Lane and West of the River Douglas); additionally TPO 3/2013 exists on an oak tree at Mill Farm, Mill Lane. The applicant has submitted an arboricultural report providing appropriate assessment and classification of trees on the site; however no tree constraints plan has been submitted, which would be required at Reserved Matters stage. There are some issues regarding proximity to trees from the indicative housing layout on the south part of the site, which could be resolved at Reserved Matters stage. The largest concern with any proposed development on the northern half of the site, is that there will be inevitably be some loss of woodland tree cover and it will be imperative that a sensitive layout is designed for any uses in this area with possibilities for new tree planting investigated on the site.

6.39 The ecology report notes the presence of a number of invasive species on the site including: Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and cotoneaster. The applicant will therefore need to adopt appropriate working methods to prevent the spread in the wild of these (and any other invasive species as may be present). 6.40 Finally, planning decisions should limit the impact of pollution from artificial light on nature conservation (NPPF Para 125). In this case, lighting proposals must avoid illumination of bat and bird habitat that would be retained and should avoid illumination of replacement wildlife habitat.

6.41 In summary, whilst the indicative plan and supporting information identify there are significant constraints on the site I do not consider there are any substantial reasons in principle as to why the site cannot realise the mixed residential, employment and open space land uses. Clearly there are potentially significant limitations resulting from the existing biodiversity value of the site which, again, is likely to restrict the developable areas, however, I am satisfied the sensitive design and landscaping within the layout will provide suitable mitigation opportunities

Coastal Zone

6.42 Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the NPPF require local authorities to have regard to potential effects of climate change on flood risk when determining development, also to be mindful of adverse effects that development might have in vulnerable coastal areas. Part of the southern area of the site close to the River Douglas is designated as a Coastal Zone in the Local Plan. Policy EN2 of the Local Plan limits development within these areas to that which is essential in meeting the needs of coastal navigation, amenity and informal recreation, tourism and leisure, flood protection, fisheries, nature conservation and/or agriculture. At present the site is in agricultural use for cattle grazing and the area close to the River includes a public footpath. Policy EN2 also states that development in Marine Areas as defined by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) must be in line with the Marine Policy Statement and, when produced, Marine Plans. At present there is no Marine Plan for the North West and as such, the Marine Policy Statement should be adhered to.

6.43 The Marine Management Organisation has been established to make a significant contribution to sustainable development in the marine area and to promote the UK government's vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The organisation is responsible for implementing a new marine planning system designed to integrate the social requirements, economic potential and environmental imperatives of our seas and implementing a new marine licensing regime as well as other duties. This marine planning regime extends to the high water mark and the terrestrial planning regime extends to the low water mark so there is an overlap which is intended to create a link between the proposed Marine Plan and development plans. The Environment Agency is responsible for flood and coastal erosion risk management.

6.44 The MMO has been consulted on the current proposal and do not consider that a marine licence will be required for this proposal as, when the relevant documents have been reviewed, no works will be taking place below Mean High Water Springs.

6.45 It is accepted that Policy EN2.5 restricts residential development within Coastal Zones; however, the construction of dwellings within this southern part of the site, still allows for the creation of a linear park on that land is set aside close to the river bank for this purpose, and the EA is satisfied there is no issue of flood risk (subject to conditions). In this regard, part of Policy EN2.5 is satisfied. The use of part of the Coastal Zone for housing must be balanced against the need for housing towards the contribution of the Council’s five year housing supply within a sustainable location and having regard to the mixed use allocation of the site to deliver up to 270 dwellings.

Landscape Character Area

6.46 The southern part of the site within the Coastal Zone is also designated as a Landscape Character Area of Local Importance and detailed as being within the Northern Mosses in the Supplementary Planning Guidance Natural Areas. This area covers the River Douglas frontage and associated landscapes north of Sollom and at Becconsall on the sand and gravel ridges, where traces remain of old farm sites. The archaeological potential of the sand and gravel ridges is great as these areas have always represented the more congenial (to use and settlement) fringes to the mossland. The SPG recommends that historical features relating to the past use of the River Douglas are retained and opportunities taken up for the landscape’s interpretation. Local residents advise that this site contains the only remaining example of the Hillhouse Coast Boulder Clay Cliff (a shallow cliff cut into the boulder clay as the level of the Irish Sea rose after the retreat of the glaciers).

6.47 The fact that the area lies within this Landscape Area of Local Importance does not in itself prohibit building upon it. It is intended to inform and provide context to any future development. In this respect, it will be important to ensure that the scale and layout of development is designed to limit the impact on the outer wide open countryside on the eastern side of the river as any development on the elevated “cliff” will have a noticeable impact when viewed from a distance. It will also be important to ensure that the distinctive character and visual quality of this area is carefully assessed at Reserved Matters stage to ensure compliance with Policies GN3 and EN2 of the Local Plan.

Heritage

6.48 The NPPF defines a heritage asset as a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. The accompanying National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG 2014) defines a non-designated heritage asset as buildings, monuments, site, places, areas or landscapes identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions but which are not formally designated heritage assets. Other than the Landscape Character Area on the south part of the site referred to above, there are no heritage assets, either designated or identified by the Council as “buildings of local interest” within the site.

6.49 Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has submitted a Heritage Assessment in order to consider whether or not the proposal impacts upon any potential heritage asset as required by Policy EN4 of the Local Plan. The southern part of the site is adjacent to the Fulwood and Douglas Avenue Conservation Area; however I consider that the proposed development would not be viewed within the same context as this small discrete conservation area (linked by two residential streets and set within a mature wooded environment) and as such its impact would be minimal. The north half of the site includes the former brickworks. The brickworks were created at a similar time as the West Lancashire Railway around 1878 which linked Southport with Preston and east Lancashire. Henry Alty took over the site not long after its creation and the business has remained with the family until the present day. The brickworks were very successful and covered a large area with kilns, chimneys, drying sheds, timber yard and steam sawmill, some of which remain today. By the 1960’s the brickworks was facing decline and the old railway line closed in 1964 and was removed. Alty’s was one of the last brickworks to stop production although other uses took over some of the buildings. The original C19 tall chimney was demolished in 1975 along with two older kilns. The surviving chimney is the second kiln chimney constructed on the site, around 1950. The significance of the kiln building has been reduced due to the removal of the internal features and it’s poor condition and although the chimney is in better condition, it’s significance is not considered to be high because of its more recent construction. I am therefore satisfied that the remaining buildings on the site are not of significant historic or architectural importance and their demolition to enable re-development on the site is considered acceptable.

Public open space and Linear Park

6.50 Policy IF2 of the Local Plan supports the delivery of a Linear Park between Hesketh Bank and Tarleton and it is considered that this site could assist in the delivery of part of the Linear Park. The indicative plan indicates that land can be made available along the river bank for the provision of the park and any future layout could incorporate a link from the lake to the park. As such, the proposal does not prejudice the delivery of the Park and CIL gained from the development could be used in part, to help fund the delivery of the park and its longer-term maintenance. As such, the proposal is compliant with Policy IF2.

6.51 Policy GN3 and Policy EN3 of the Local Plan require residential development to include public open space, previously dealt with through a planning obligation. On 1st September 2014 the Council adopted a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The effect of the implementation of CIL is that planning obligations (or ‘Section 106 agreements’) will be much more limited in their scope. In terms of public open space provision, funding for the more strategic types of public open space off-site will come from CIL receipts, but residential developments of a certain size will be required to provide public open space on-site through a planning obligation or planning condition. Supplementary Planning Guidance (Open Space SPD) has been adopted from the implementation of CIL (01.09.14), which deals with the provision of on-site open space in residential development. Policy OS1 of the new SPD requires that on developments of between 40 and 289 dwellings, developers will be required to provide 13.5 square metres of public open space per bedroom developed. This public open space should typically take the form of informal amenity green space. The on-site open space provision and future maintenance on this site will be required by condition and/or planning obligation in accordance with Policy OS1 of the SPD.

Affordable and Specialist Housing

6.52 Provision of 35% affordable housing is required on sites of this scale under the terms of Policy RS2 of the Local Plan in this locality. The Council is currently seeking to provide an 80:20 split of social rented to intermediate affordable housing types. In additional to this, Policies RS1 and RS2 also require that 20% of new residential units should be suitable for the elderly. Policy is flexible as to how this requirement should be met, and this provision can form part of the affordable housing provision, but the units must be designed specifically for the elderly to live in without adaptation.

6.53 In this instance, as only the principle of the development is sought and there are a number of financial and physical constraints on the site which may affect viability of the scheme, it is considered that the best practicable approach to ensure flexibility in the planning system, will be to require an appraisal viability at the reserved matters stage and that viability be subject to review in the event of delays in development coming forward. This will be a condition of any approval and built into the terms of a planning obligation. The applicant has specified their intention to deliver the site on a phased approach, with a full residential scheme coming forward on the south part of the site as Phase 1 and without any affordable housing, with the remainder of the site submitted as Phase 2 and including the necessary affordable and specialist housing and employment uses once the exact area of development is known (taking into account the BHS on the site). Provided that the viability of any development upon Phase 1 is taken into account on the site overall, I am satisfied with this approach.

Site Contamination

6.54 Given the former brickwork use of the site and the filling in of former clay pits, it will be necessary for a comprehensive assessment of existing site contamination to take place. A ‘Phase 1 and II Geo-Environmental Site Investigation ’ study has been carried out and suggests there may be potential site contamination and remedial works required and further ground investigation is recommended. This can be required by condition.

Impact on Neighbouring Land Uses

6.55 It is necessary to consider the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of existing surrounding land uses, including neighbouring residents. As this application is in outline, only an illustrative layout has been provided indicating that the relevant distances between dwellings and employment uses can be achievable (including recent residential permissions). Should the proposal be considered acceptable in outline, then a more detailed Reserved Matters application will be required to be submitted to assess the detailed implications upon neighbouring amenity.

6.56 To the northern boundary are residential properties and there is a significant woodland buffer to these properties such that I do not anticipate any detrimental impact of any mixed-use development on these residents. Part of the eastern boundary includes the Douglas Boatyard and it will be important in any future development to ensure that noise from this business does not impact upon future residents at the site. As such, I consider a noise assessment will be necessary for future Reserved Matters stage to inform layout and construction.

6.57 Along the north-western boundary are residential properties along Station Road. In view of the fact that the existing West Lancashire Light Railway already lies to the rear of these properties, I do not envisage any significant increase in noise disturbance as a result of a mixed use development on the site; however, noise assessments may be required at Reserved Matters stage in order to ensure noise protection for any proposed dwellings adjacent to employment areas. This would also be applicable to any proposed dwellings to the rear of Booths on the western boundary. I consider the proposed development would result in less potential noise pollution than the current open industrial use of the site.

6.58 At this stage, I am satisfied that the principle of a mixed-use development can be accommodated on this site, bearing in mind the site constraints. Whilst neighbouring residents will undoubtedly see the development; that in itself is not a reason to refuse a planning permission. I do not anticipate that the development would pose any harm to neighbouring amenity provided that the relevant distances are adhered to in any subsequent reserved matters application, as required in the Council’s adopted SPD Design Guide and as a result of any noise-specific assessment.

6.59 The main impacts of any significant mixed-use residential development in this area would be during the construction phase of development in terms of noise; and in the longer term, from increased traffic and use of local services generated by the development. Whilst some noise will be generated during the construction phases, this will be subject to environmental control. In addition, the applicant suggests that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be submitted with any reserved matters application and this would provide the necessary measures to control noise levels, hours of working, construction traffic routing, construction barriers to protect habitats etc. This detail can be imposed by condition.

6.60 In terms of the additional traffic that will be generated as a result of this development, LCC Highways have assessed the predicted traffic generation levels and conclude that, provided the improvements to public transport/pedestrian/cycle routes, along with the junction improvements and monitoring are implemented, the development will not prejudice highway capacity or safety in the surrounding area. With regards the impact of the additional population on local services such as school places and health provision, I am satisfied that the relevant bodies have been consulted and concluded that the proposed development would not significantly impact on the existing provision such to require significant additional school places (8 primary school places) or health services. The proposed development would secure and benefit local shopping services in the locality and also the help towards the wider housing requirement on an allocated site.

Community Infrastructure Levy and Planning Obligations

6.61 On 1st September 2014 the Council adopts a Community Infrastructure Levy. This allows the Council to raise funds from developers who are undertaking new building projects in the Borough. The money can be used to pay for a wide range of infrastructure that is needed as a result of development. The types of infrastructure that West Lancashire BC intend to use CIL receipts for is set out on a “Regulation 123 List” and includes:

- Strategic transport and highways improvements (including cycle network provision and improvement, footpaths and bus stops) but excluding any works that form part of a S278 Agreement (junction improvements);

- Strategic Green Infrastructure (including improvements to and provision of parks, amenity open space, play areas, outdoor sports facilities and playing pitches, semi-natural open space) but excluding the Burscough to Ormskirk Linear Park and the New Town Park at Yew Tree Farm and any other onsite green infrastructure required by the most up-to-date planning policy in order to meet the needs of larger development sites.

- Community facilities (including libraries, health facilities, community centres, public realm works and leisure centres).

6.62 A planning obligation (S108 Agreement) would still be necessary in this instance to ensure the following: - Provision and maintenance of on-site open space;

- Affordable housing and specialist housing for the elderly housing provision including type, tenure, nomination rights;

- 96,237 funding for the required education provision;

- Phasing

All the above would be subject to a viability assessment.

Summary

6.63 In summary, I consider that the applicant has suitably demonstrated that the development of the site for residential purposes, public realm, linear park and B1 employment uses meets current Local Plan and NPPF policies. Subject to highway improvements the development will not result in any significant impact on highway safety or capacity in the vicinity of the site, and the development is in accordance with all other relevant policies in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to the Assistant Director Planning in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to the applicant entering into an obligation agreement under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of and subject to viability, 35% affordable housing and 20% Specialist Housing for the Elderly; £96,237 education funding; deliver public open space on the site and provide a schedule and delivery mechanism for the maintenance of the public open space, and to define the phased delivery of the development.

7.2 That any planning permission granted by the Borough Planner pursuant to recommendation 7.1 above be subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS TO FOLLOW No.9 APPLICATION 2014/0696/WL3 NO. LOCATION 79 Birleywood Skelmersdale Lancashire WN8 9BS

PROPOSAL Single storey rear extension. APPLICANT West Lancashire Borough Council WARD Moorside PARISH Unparished - Skelmersdale TARGET DATE 9th September 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 None

2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

2.1 Housing and Regeneration (17.07.14) - No objections

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Ashurst Tenants and Residents Association (19.07.14) No Objections

4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

4.1 None Received

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD provide the policy framework against which the development proposals will be assessed.

The site is located within the settlement of Skelmersdale as designated in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD

West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD

GN3 - Criteria for Sustainable Development

SPD – Design Guide (Jan 2008) 6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

6.1 This is a mid-terrace property situated within the settlement of Skelmersdale.

The Proposal

6.2 This application seeks planning permission for a single storey rear extension with an irregular footprint measuring a maximum depth of 3.6m. The proposed development would have a height of 2.5m to eaves with a pitched roof (3.5m to ridge). An existing utility room would be removed as part of the proposed development.

Design and Appearance

6.3 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the Council’s SPD Design Guide states that extensions should be subordinate in size, scale and mass to the original dwelling and should have proportion and built form which relates to the character and appearance of the existing property.

6.4 I am satisfied that the design and external appearance of the single storey rear extension is acceptable and relates well to the existing dwelling in terms of its scale, proportion, and appearance.

Impact upon neighbouring properties

6.5 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the Council’s SPD Design Guide allows development provided it retains or creates reasonable levels of privacy, amenity and sufficient garden/outdoor space for occupiers of the neighbouring and proposed properties.

6.6 An existing 2m high fence acts as a communal boundary between the application site and the adjoining properties numbers 77 and 81. Both neighbouring properties have principle ground floor windows along the communal boundary.

6.7 The Council’s Design Guide states that as a general rule a single storey extension along a common boundary may begin to cause overshadowing if it projects outwards beyond a neighbours own building, by 4m. The proposed development does not exceed this and is stepped in from both side boundaries (0.9m to the south and 2.95m to the north). Its impact on neighbouring properties is further minimised by the shallow pitch of the proposed roof. I am mindful that land levels are approximately 0.4m higher within the application site than the neighbouring property to the south, No. 77 Birleywood. However given the scale of the development, the presence of a dividing fence and the set back from the boundary, I am satisfied that these changeable levels would not cause harm to the amenities of this neighbouring property. I am satisfied there would not be any significant impact on adjacent properties through loss of light, poor outlook and loss of privacy.

Summary

6.8 In summary, I consider that proposal will not have an adverse impact upon neighbouring properties and the design is considered to be acceptable. Therefore the proposal is in accordance with policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the SPD Design Guide.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions

Drawing number 10 and 02 received by the Local Planning Authority on 2nd July 2014

GN1 Settlement Boundaries GN3 Criteria for Sustainable Development

PROPOSAL Single storey rear/side extension. APPLICANT West Lancashire Borough Council WARD Scarisbrick PARISH Scarisbrick TARGET DATE 9th September 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 None relevant.

2.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

2.1 West Lancashire Borough Council Estates and Regeneration have no objections to this application.

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Scarisbrick Parish Council – no objections.

4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

4.1 None.

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD provide the policy framework against which development proposals will be assessed.

5.2 The site is located within the Small Rural Village of Scarisbrick as designated in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD. . West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD

GN3 Criteria for Sustainable Development Supplementary Planning Advice

Supplementary Planning Design Guide (January 2008)

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

Site Description 6.1 The application site is a two storey semi-detached house located on the north east side of Rimmer Green. The property has a single storey extension to the rear adjacent to the boundary with the adjoining neighbour, no. 26 Rimmer Green, and a single storey flat roof outrigger projecting from the gable end of the house.

The Proposal 6.2 This application seeks planning permission for a single storey extension to the side/rear. The works would involve an extension to the existing side outrigger, which would create a secondary entrance to the dwelling, and erection of an extension to the rear which would project 3.7m from the main rear wall of the house and be set off the boundary with the adjoining neighbour by 0.5m. The extension would have a width of 11m, and project beyond the gable end of the house by 2.7m. The extension would have an eaves height of 2.4m and a ridge height of 3.8m.

Assessment 6.3 The main considerations in the assessment of the application are:

(i) Visual appearance/design (ii) Impact on residential amenity.

Visual appearance/design 6.4 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan states that in the case of extensions to existing buildings, the proposal should relate to the existing building, in terms of design and materials. Whilst the proposed extension would have a relatively large footprint, it would be constructed from matching materials to the main dwelling, and as such would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the existing dwelling.

Impact on residential amenity 6.5 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan states that reasonable levels of privacy, amenity and sufficient garden/outdoor space for occupiers of the proposed and neighbouring properties should be retained.

6.6 The proposed extension would project 3.7m from the rear of the existing house. There is currently a single storey rear extension of the same projection, and as such in terms of impact on occupiers of no. 26 the relationship would remain the same. Furthermore, a rear extension with a projection of 3.7m falls within the limits given in the Council’s Design Guide.

6.7 In terms of the potential impact on the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling no. 24, the application dwelling is set at an angle to no. 24, and as such the proposed extension would be set off the boundary with no. 24. This coupled with the fact that there are no primary windows on the gable end means that there would be no adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of no. 24 as a result of the proposed development.

Summary 6.8 It is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of nearby residents and that the design of the proposed extensions would be acceptable, in accordance with policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027, and the Supplementary Planning Design Guide (January 2008).

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Plan reference DG01 received by the Local Planning Authority on 03/07/14.

Plan reference DG02 received by the Local Planning Authority on 03/07/14.

Plan reference DG03 received by the Local Planning Authority on 03/07/14.

Plan reference DG04 R received by the Local Planning Authority on 11/07/14.

Plan reference DG10 received by the Local Planning Authority on 11/07/14.

Plan reference DG11 received by the Local Planning Authority on 03/07/14.

Plan reference DG13 received by the Local Planning Authority on 03/07/14. Reasons 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document.

GN3 - Criteria for Sustainable Development

PROPOSAL Construction of 2 stop internal lift shaft for disabled access requiring extension to first floor to accommodate diverted internal staircase. Construction of ground floor extension to bin room to rear of new shaft. APPLICANT West Lancashire Borough Council WARD Tanhouse PARISH Unparished - Skelmersdale TARGET DATE 3rd September 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 None

2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

2.1 WLBC Estates & Regeneration (16.07.14) – fully supports the proposed development

2.2 Coal Authority (24.07.2014) – No objection

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 None received

4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

4.1 The site is located within the main settlement area of Skelmersdale in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

National Planning Policy Framework Requiring good design

West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027) DPD Policy GN1 – Settlement Boundaries Policy GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development

Supplementary Planning Document, Design Guide (Jan 2008) 5.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

5.1 The site relates to a communal housing building situated to the north of Tanhouse Road.

The Proposal

5.2 Planning permission is sought for construction of two stop internal lift shafts for disabled access which requires an extension at first floor to accommodate a diverted internal staircase. In addition permission is required for the construction of a ground floor extension to the bin store to the rear of the new shaft.

5.3 The existing bin store is located on the eastern side of the building. The proposed bin store extension would measure 3.8m x 1m x 2.16. The proposed first floor extension involves a 0.9m extension of the first floor above the bin store to accommodate an internal staircase diversion and the provision of a new lift shaft.

Assessment

5.4 The main considerations for the determination of this application are; Visual appearance / design / character of street scene. Impact upon neighbouring properties

Visual appearance / design

5.6 The proposed development would be visible from the east of the building only. It would be screened from other viewpoints by virtue of its location within the building complex. The ground floor extension is considered be acceptable in terms of scale and siting as it effectively fills in an existing setback within the eastern elevation and would take on a similar appearance to the existing bin store. The extended first floor would remain set back from the outer limits of the building and is again designed to be in keeping with the existing appearance of this part of the building. I consider the siting, scale and design of the proposed extension to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy GN3 in the WLLP in that respect. Impact upon neighbouring properties

5.8 The scale, form and positioning of the extension off the boundaries with the neighbouring properties will ensure that no significant loss of sunlight/daylight or overbearing impact will result. The proposed first floor extension would remain set back from the eastern elevation of the building, maintaining a significant gap between it and the neighbouring properties to the east (Nos. 37 to 49 (odds) Evenwood). The existing window arrangement and outlook offered by the extension remains as existing, albeit 0.9m closer to the eastern boundary. I am satisfied that the separation distance is sufficient to ensure the proposal would not result in any overlooking of the neighbouring properties. In terms of the proposed ground floor extension, by infilling an existing set back, this does not encroach beyond the eastern most point of the building, limiting its impact on the rear outlook of the neighbouring dwellings to the east. On that basis I consider the development will not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjacent residential properties or other land uses in the vicinity.

6.0 SUMMARY

6.1 I consider the proposed development accords with the requirements of Policy GN3 in the WLLP and advice within the Design Guide SPD and therefore planning permission should be granted.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Drawing number 001, EXGF, EXFF, 002, EXELEV, proposed site plan (1:500) and site location (1:1250) plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 25th April 2014

Drawing number 003 received by the Local Planning Authority on 29th May 2014 3. All external brickwork and roofing materials shall be identical to those on the existing building in respect of shape, size, colour and texture. If the applicant or developer has any doubts as to whether the proposed materials do match they should check with the Local Planning Authority before commencement of the building works.

Policy GN1 – Settlement Boundaries Policy GN3 Criteria for Sustainable Development

together with Supplementary Planning Guidance and all relevant material considerations. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal complies with the relevant Policy criteria and is acceptable in the context of all relevant material considerations as set out in the Officer's Report. This report can be viewed or a copy provided on request to the Local Planning Authority. No.12 APPLICATION 2014/0593/FUL NO. LOCATION Lancashire Manor Hotel Prescott Road East Pimbo Up Holland Skelmersdale Lancashire WN8 9QD PROPOSAL Erection of a two storey rectangular block extension to the hotel on its southern elevation. It will be located on an existing car parking area and will adjoin the existing building via a small link leading to the main two storey extension that will stretch eastwards (towards Chequer Lane). The extension will provide 24 no. ensuite bedrooms. APPLICANT Lancashire Manor Hotel WARD Up Holland PARISH Up Holland TARGET DATE 18th August 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 2010/0413/LBC GRANTED - Listed Building Consent - Demolition of existing glazed link corridor and erection of new link corridor.

1.2 2010/0412/FUL GRANTED - Demolition of existing glazed link corridor and erection of new link corridor.

2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

2.1 Environmental Health (22.07.14) – No objection subject to standard note regarding construction within areas close to former landfill sites.

2.2 LCC Highways (29.07.14 and 18.08.14) – Originally considered that the proposal may have a detrimental impact on highway safety and amenity in the immediate vicinity of the site and recommended that a car parking assessment was carried out to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the remaining available off road parking because overspill parking on Prescott Road would have a detrimental impact on highway safety and also the potential for amenity issues on Chequer Close. When the parking assessment was subsequently submitted, LCC Highways have no longer any concerns regarding highway safety provided that the access/egress to Chequer Close remains in use of emergency vehicles only. 2.3 The Coal Authority (21.07.14) – No objection and is satisfied with the conclusions of the Coal Mining Risk Assessment that coal mining legacy issues are not significant within the site and do not pose a risk to the development.

2.4 Lancashire Constabulary (11.07.14) – All aspects of the extension should be built in accordance with “Secured by Design’ The existing CCTV coverage should be extended to include this development. The exterior of the building and car parking areas should be well lit. The extension should be linked to the existing intruder alarm system.

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 None

4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

4.1 The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement including a Heritage Assessment. A parking assessment has also been submitted.

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

5.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document (Local Plan) provide the policy framework against which the development proposals will be assessed.

5.2 The site subject to this application is situated within the Strategic Employment Site of Pimbo Industrial Estate. The building is a Grade II Listed Building.

5.3 National Planning Policy Framework: Building a strong, competitive economy Promoting sustainable transport Requiring good design Conserving and enhancing the historic environment 5.4 West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD: SP1 – A Sustainable Development Framework for West Lancashire GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development EC1 – The Economy and Employment Land IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choice IF3 – Service Accessibility and Infrastructure for Growth EN1 – Low Carbon Development and Energy Infrastructure EN4 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Cultural and Heritage Assets

Supplementary Planning Document – Design Guide (January 2008) 6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING The Site

6.1 Lancashire Manor Hotel is located to the north of Prescott Road, East Pimbo. The small residential cul-de-sac of Chequer Close is located to the north, with Chequer Lane and Green Belt in the east. To the south and west are industrial units. The hotel comprises of the original Grade II Listed part and a series of later additions. There is a large car parking area located to its frontage and a smaller overflow car parking area on the application site.

The Proposal

6.2 It is proposed to erect a two storey 24-bedroom extension to the south elevation of the hotel. The extension measures 26m x 15m with an eaves height of 5.5m and a ridge to match the existing hotel at 9.5m. The extension will be linked to the existing building and constructed upon an existing car parking area. A total of 23 car parking spaces will be lost as a result of the proposal; however, 107 spaces will remain for a total number of bedrooms (including the proposed) of 74. Principle of Development

6.4 Whilst the proposed development will not provide B1, B2 or B8 floor space, given that this site is an established hotel complex and will create a number of jobs within the area, I am satisfied that the principle of development is acceptable and will not compromise the general thrust of Policy EC1. Furthermore, the hotel supports the businesses on the industrial estate by offering overnight accommodation on its doorstep right next to the motorway link. The proposal is in accordance with the principles of paragraphs 19 and 21 of the NPPF, which emphasises the commitment by the government to sustainable economic growth, and the support of existing businesses.

6.5 The original farmhouse and barn are Grade II Listed Buildings. The NPPF and the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places great emphasis on the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets. Extensions to Listed Buildings are considered acceptable where the significance of the heritage asset is not compromised.

Impact on the Listed Building 6.6 The Lancashire Manor Hotel encompasses the original C17 farmhouse and barn, which is Grade II Listed. In the formal list entry the numerous existing C20 extensions to the building are stated to be of no special architectural interest. Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that “In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.” Paragraph 132 goes on to advise “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.” Finally, paragraph 134 says “where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.” 6.7 The proposed extension will be linked to a later addition to the Listed building and significantly distant from the original building, not clearly “read” alongside it. Furthermore, the existing business needs to grow to sustain its competitiveness in the hotel business, which, in turn, maintains the longer term protection of the heritage asset. On that basis I am satisfied that there is limited impact upon the Listed Building or its setting, and the proposal complies with relevant policy in this regard.

Car Parking and Highway Safety

6.8 As a result of the proposed extension a total of 23 car parking spaces will be lost. Policy IF2, Appendix F of the Local Plan requires 1 no. car parking space per bedroom plus staff parking. The existing parking area provides a total of 130 spaces for 50 bedrooms. The proposed extension will include an additional 24 bedrooms (74 total bedrooms) and 107 car parking spaces will remain. A parking assessment has been submitted which demonstrates that this number of spaces is more than adequate for the number of bedrooms and staff proposed and also taking into consideration the additional demand associated with ancillary facilities such as the bar, restaurant and conference facilities. As such, I consider that the proposed development is unlikely to result in any off-street car parking and will not lead to an unacceptable impact upon highway safety and capacity in the area.

6.9 The existing access to the site off Prescott Road is designed to accommodate two-way vehicle entry/egress with sufficient visibility splays and I consider the additional 24 bedroom block will not significantly affect the current access arrangements and as such, the proposal complies with Policy GN3 of the Local Plan. The existing access to Chequer Lane is restricted by a barrier and is only for emergency access as a condition of the entertainment license.

Design, Appearance and Impact on Neighbouring Amenity

6.10 In terms of the layout and design of the development, Policy GN3 of the Local Plan and the SPD Design Guide require that new commercial development, regardless of location, should be a focus to promote high quality design in order to enhance the overall quality of the built environment, both aesthetically and functionally.

6.11 I consider that the proposed location for the extension is the most practical and reduces any impact upon the Listed Building. Whilst the extension will project beyond the eastern elevation (rear) facing Chequer Lane, taking into consideration the lower land level of the site than that of Chequer Lane, I am satisfied that this will not appear overly prominent, provided that some additional landscaping is incorporated along the Chequer Lane road frontage. In addition, the proposed approx. 9m set back from the highway and the height of the extension being limited to that of the existing building, will both assist in limiting the impact upon this street scene and the existing building. The proposed design and materials of the extension match that on the building to which it is attached and thus serve to assimilate the building into its surroundings in compliance with Policy GN3 of the Local Plan.

6.12 The nearest neighbouring residential properties to the proposed extension are located to the north-west along Chequer Close, approximately 85m from the proposed extension. The proposed extension will house an additional 24 bedrooms and will not incorporate any function space. Given the bedroom block will be contained away from the residential properties and will be used only for bedrooms, I consider that there will be no additional impact upon the residential amenity of these neighbouring properties from the building itself. The increase in the number of bedrooms may increase traffic to and from the site; however, I consider adequate car parking remains on the site and as the access to the hotel is from Prescott Road, I consider there will be no notable impact upon residents of Chequer Close. The proposal therefore complies with Policy GN3 of the Local Plan in this regard.

Summary

6.13 The principle of the hotel extension is acceptable as is its design and positioning, provided that additional landscaping is incorporated along the Chequer Lane frontage. I am satisfied that the proposed extension does not lead to harm to the Listed Building or nearby residents and would not have an unacceptable impact on the highway network. As such, I consider that the proposal complies with all relevant local and national planning policy pertaining to the impact of development upon heritage assets. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

3. To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory and that the development therefore complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 4. To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory and that the development therefore complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 5. To safeguard the safety and interests of the users of the highway and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 6. To allow for vehicles visiting the site to be parked clear of the highway and to assimilate the new car parking areas within the site and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policies GN3 & IF2 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document.

SP1 – A Sustainable Development Framework for West Lancashire GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development EC1 – The Economy and Employment Land IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choice IF3 – Service Accessibility and Infrastructure for Growth EN1 – Low Carbon Development and Energy Infrastructure EN4 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Cultural and Heritage Assets

together with Supplementary Planning Guidance and all relevant material considerations. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal complies with the relevant Policy criteria and is acceptable in the context of all relevant material considerations as set out in the Officer's Report. This report can be viewed or a copy provided on request to the Local Planning Authority. No.13 APPLICATION 2014/0594/LBC NO. LOCATION Lancashire Manor Hotel Prescott Road East Pimbo Up Holland Skelmersdale Lancashire WN8 9QD PROPOSAL Listed Building Consent - Erection of a two storey rectangular block extension to the hotel on its southern elevation. It will be located on an existing car parking area and will adjoin the existing building via a small link leading to the main two storey extension that will stretch eastwards (towards Chequer Lane). The extension will provide 24 no,. ensuite bedrooms. APPLICANT Lancashire Manor Hotel WARD Up Holland PARISH Up Holland TARGET DATE 18th August 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 2010/0413/LBC GRANTED - Listed Building Consent - Demolition of existing glazed link corridor and erection of new link corridor.

1.2 2010/0412/FUL GRANTED - Demolition of existing glazed link corridor and erection of new link corridor.

2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

2.1 None

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 West Lancashire Conservation Advisory Panel (31.07.14) - No comment – the proposal was not viewed as a positive addition in terms of design, but its distance from the Listed part of the hotel complex was considered such that impact on the character and historic setting was negligible.

4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

4.1 The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement including a Heritage Assessment. A parking assessment has also been submitted. 5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

5.2 The site subject to this application is situated within the Strategic Employment Site of Pimbo Industrial Estate. The building is a Grade II Listed Building.

5.3 National Planning Policy Framework: Requiring good design Conserving and enhancing the historic environment 5.4 West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD: GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development EN4 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Cultural and Heritage Assets

Supplementary Planning Document – Design Guide (January 2008)

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

The Proposal

6.3 The hotel grounds fall within an allocated Strategic Employment Site – Pimbo Industrial Estate. Policy EC1 of the Local Plan requires a mix of industrial, business, storage and distribution uses (B1, B2 and B8) and will allow A1 retail warehouses on a like for like basis of existing A1 premises. 6.4 The original farmhouse and barn are Grade II Listed Buildings. The NPPF and the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places great emphasis on the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets. Extensions to Listed Buildings are considered acceptable where the significance of the heritage asset is not compromised.

Impact on the Listed Building 6.5 The Lancashire Manor Hotel encompasses the original C17 farmhouse and barn, which is Grade II Listed. In the formal list entry the numerous existing C20 extensions to the building are stated to be of no special architectural interest. Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that “In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.” Paragraph 132 goes on to advise “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.” Finally, paragraph 134 says “where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.”

6.6 The proposed extension will be linked to a later addition to the Listed building and significantly distant from the original building, not clearly “read” alongside it. Furthermore, the applicant advises that the existing business needs to grow to sustain its competitiveness in the hotel business, which, in turn, maintains the longer term protection of the heritage asset. On that basis I am satisfied that there is limited impact upon the Listed Building or its setting, and the proposal complies with relevant policy in this regard.

Design and Appearance 6.7 In terms of the layout and design of the development, Policy GN3 of the Local Plan and the SPD Design Guide require that new commercial development, regardless of location, should be a focus to promote high quality design in order to enhance the overall quality of the built environment, both aesthetically and functionally.

6.8 I consider that the proposed location for the extension is the most practical and reduces any impact upon the Listed Building. Whilst the extension will project beyond the eastern elevation (rear) facing Chequer Lane, taking into consideration the lower land level of the site than that of Chequer Lane, I am satisfied that this will not appear overly prominent, provided that some additional landscaping is incorporated along the Chequer Lane road frontage. In addition, the proposed approx. 9m set back from the highway and the height of the extension being limited to that of the existing building, will both assist in limiting the impact upon this street scene and the setting of the Listed Building. The proposed design and materials of the extension match that on the building to which it is attached and thus serve to assimilate the building into its surroundings in compliance with Policy GN3 of the Local Plan.

Summary 6.9 The principle of the hotel extension is acceptable as is its design and positioning. I am satisfied that the proposed extension does not lead to harm to the significance of the Listed Building or its setting. As such, I consider that the proposal complies with all relevant local and national planning policy pertaining to the impact of development upon heritage assets.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That listed building consent be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions 1. The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the consent is granted. 2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with details shown on the following plans:-

Plan reference 0304 (proposed floor plans) received by the Local Planning Authority on 5th June 2014; Plan reference 0305 (proposed ground floor plan on topographical survey) received by the Local Planning Authority on 5th June 2014; Plan reference 0306 (existing and proposed elevations) received by the Local Planning Authority on 23rd June 2014.

Reasons 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 2. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. Reason for Approval 1. The Local Planning Authority has considered the proposed development in the context of the Development Plan including, in particular, the following Policy/Policies in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document:

GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development EN4 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Cultural and Heritage Assets