1 Agenda Item: 7 Planning Committee: 9Th

AGENDA ITEM: 7

PLANNING COMMITTEE: 9TH OCTOBER 2014

Report of: Assistant Director Planning

Relevant Managing Director: 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.

1 CONTENT SHEET

Report Ward Application Site Location &Recommendation No No Proposal 1 Tarleton 2014/0088/FUL Land To The North-west Planning Of 2 Smith Avenue permission be Tarleton Lancashire granted.

Installation of a Page Nos. 7 - 14 telecommunications base station comprising a 23m lightweight lattice mast (24.6m to top of collinear antenna) with 9 no. antennas, 2 no. 300mm dishes, 3 no. 600mm diameter dishes, associated equipment cabin and ancillary development within a palisade fenced compound.

2 Tarleton 2014/0704/OUT Land Between 101 And The decision to 125 Hesketh Lane grant planning Tarleton Lancashire permission be delegated to the Outline application for Assistant the erection of up to 17 Director Planning dwellings with in consultation associated access and with the all other matters Chairman or Vice reserved. Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 being entered into. Page Nos. 15-24

2 Report Ward Application Site Location &Recommendation No No Proposal 3 Scarisbrick 2014/0870/OUT Cop House Farm Outline Planning Jacksmere Lane permission be Scarisbrick Lancashire granted. L40 9RS Page Nos. 25-38 Outline - Demolition of existing buildings and clearance of site and erection of 6 dwellings plus 4 affordable dwellings. New vehicular/pedestrian access. Including details of access, layout and scale.

4 North Meols 2013/1217/COU Land To The Rear Of 8 Planning To 10 Station Road permission be Banks Lancashire granted.

Change of use from Page Nos. 39-43 allotment/general storage land to exercising area for four dogs (including two working police dogs) and retention of close boarded fence. Importation of top soil to level the land.

5 North Meols 2014/0675/FUL 8 Chapel Lane Banks Planning Southport Lancashire permission be PR9 8EY refused.

Retrospective consent Page Nos. 44-48 for a detached garage at rear of dwelling and masonry boundary walling at front of dwelling.

3 Report Ward Application Site Location &Recommendation No No Proposal 6 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 Outline - Residential Director Planning development across two in consultation phases, including with the associated garages, Chairman or Vice roads, landscaping and Chairman of the public realm creation in Planning the form of a linear park Committee and B1 employment subject to a uses. Details of access planning included. obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 being entered into.

Page Nos. 49-109

7 Bickerstaffe 2014/0452/FUL J Mallinson (Ormskirk) Planning Ltd Former Lathom Vale permission be Nurseries Vale Lane granted. Lathom Ormskirk Lancashire L40 6JH Page Nos.110-120

Extension to existing building and increase in site limits to allow an area of hardstanding for the manoeuvring of vehicles.

4 Report Ward Application Site Location &Recommendation No No Proposal 8 Bickerstaffe 2014/0763/WL3 Land Adjacent To 49-55 Planning Church Road And 6 & permission be 25 And 9-11 Stockley granted. Crescent Bickerstaffe Lancashire Page Nos.120-126

Change of use from grassed open space to car parking. Laying of kerbs, stone base, tarmacadam road surfaces and footpaths.

9 Birch Green 2014/0709/WL3 Land At Firbeck Birch The decision to Green Skelmersdale grant planning Lancashire permission be delegated to the Outline application for Assistant 100% affordable Director Planning residential development in consultation (all matters reserved). with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 being entered into. Page Nos.127-133

10 Aughton 2014/0739/FUL 63 Swanpool Lane Planning Park Aughton Ormskirk permission be Lancashire L39 5AY granted. Page Nos.134-137 Retention of two storey extension to side and rear.

5 Report Ward Application Site Location &Recommendation No No Proposal 11 Aughton And 2014/0570/FUL Bellagios 20 Springfield Planning Downholland Road Aughton Ormskirk permission be Lancashire L39 6ST granted. Page Nos.138-146 Demolition of existing building and the erection of a new build Prestige Car Sales Facility.

12 Aughton And 2014/0601/FUL Land North West And Planning Downholland South West Of Gerard permission be Hall Prescot Road granted. Aughton Ormskirk Page Nos.147-174 Lancashire L39 6TA

Construction of a solar farm, to include the installation of solar panels to generate electricity with transformer housing, DNO substation, switch room, operation and storage rooms, security fencing and cameras, landscaping and other associated works.

6 No.1 APPLICATION 2014/0088/FUL NO. LOCATION Land To The North-west Of 2 Smith Avenue Tarleton Lancashire

PROPOSAL Installation of a telecommunications base station comprising a 23m lightweight lattice mast (24.6m to top of collinear antenna) with 9 no. antennas, 2 no. 300mm dishes, 3 no. 600mm diameter dishes, associated equipment cabin and ancillary development within a palisade fenced compound. APPLICANT Vodafone Ltd WARD Tarleton PARISH Tarleton TARGET DATE 3rd October 2014

1.0 REFERRAL

1.1 This application was to be determined under the Council’s delegation scheme, however, Councillor Kay has requested that it be referred to the Committee to consider the visual aspect, accessibility of the site and impact on residential amenity.

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 NONE

3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

3.1 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS (24/06/2014) and (10/09/2014) – No objections subject to planning conditions in relation to turning areas and a construction management plan.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (03/06/2014) – No objections or observations.

3.3 NATURAL ENGLAND (14/08/2014) – Proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes.

3.4 COUNTY ECOLOGIST (09/09/2014) – Requires further clarification to whether the large willows along the drain are to be affected to facilitate the development. Recommends planning conditions.

7 4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Objections have been received from 72 addresses and 1 petition of objection has been received on the grounds of:

Size and design of mast is unacceptable. Visual impact on the skyline. Seen from long distances. Health implications and risk. Impact upon property prices. Breach of human rights. Impact upon quality of life. Close to Kingsfold Christian School, Hesketh Bank Christian Centre, Briardene Nursery and Tarleton Community primary school. Have other alternative sites been considered? There are other sites. Noise of mast. Environmental damage. Effects of Radio Frequency Interference to the air traffic radar and communications at BAE Warton and Blackpool Airport. Believe this mast is being moved from Altys land which currently has planning permission sought for 275 new houses – why can’t this mast stay where it is and houses sold accordingly? Close to established residential housing. The land in question has been assigned as “Protected Land” – contrary to local plan. Proposal is contrary to paragraph 43 and 45 of the NPPF as the need for the new site has not been justified and as the equipment has not been sympathetically designed. The mast would not be screened. Livestock close by. The road access is also unsuitable, very narrow and really only walking track, unsuitable for heavy vehicle traffic. Impact upon Fulwood Avenue/Douglas Avenue Conservation Area. Whether there is evidence or not of owls or bats we do have them in the vicinity of our garden and surrounding areas. The height of the mast cannot be shielded by trees. Will the development interfere with signals to phone, TV, and wife? Significant noise from such structures in periods of high winds. The government sponsored “Stewart Report – March 2001” clearly does not rule out the possible harmful effects of exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. Effect local property prices. The dishes are going to be at the top of the aerial with the other nine antennas, more dishes could be fixed later enlarging the size of the top of the mast. Red warning lights will be fixed on the top of the mast - they will be bright and visible at night from any window. Environmental survey is flawed – there are bats and owls flying around the site.

8 More work needs to be carried out in the area to positively determine whether the newts exist or not. The access to the site via Smith Lane is too narrow for the trucks that will be needed to service it. Coverage maps are out of date and do not show current dwellings. The access to the site via Smith Lane is too narrow for the trucks that will be needed to service it. Could lead to frequent voltage drops or even power loss. Will have to have a large standby generator which will be extremely noisy when it cuts in.

4.2 One letter of support has been received on the grounds of:

Already have little reception on phone and if it is not passed, will have none as once the mast at Altys is removed it will take away little reception.

5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

5.1 Health and Mobile Phone Base Stations

5.2 Letter and certificate from CTIL

5.3 General Background Information for Telecommunications Development

5.4 Supplementary Information

5.5 Copies of emails sent to consultees by agent

5.6 Ecological Assessment

5.7 Additional Ecology Information

5.8 Supporting Technical Information (Coverage Plots)

5.9 Technical Justification (by email 17/09/2014)

6.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

6.1 The application site is located within an area of Protected Land as designated in the West Lancashire Local Plan Proposal Map.

6.2 Relevant planning policies include:

West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development IF3 - Service accessibility and infrastructure for growth

9 6.3 Supplementary Planning Document – Design Guide

6.4 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

Site

7.1 The application site relates to an area of land that is mainly grassed over and uncultivated, located some 130m west of Hesketh Lane. The site is accessed via Smith Avenue and is designated as protected land as per the West Lancashire Local Plan. Surrounding the site are agricultural buildings to the south, glasshouses to the west and open land to the north. Residential development is located along Hesketh Lane (east), Fermor Road (south) and Moss Lane (north), these properties are located within the settlement area.

Proposal

7.2 This application seeks planning permission for the installation of a telecommunications base station comprising of a 23m lightweight lattice mast (24.6m to top of collinear antenna) with 9 no. antennas 2 no. 300mm dishes, 3 no. 600mm diameter dishes, associated equipment cabin and ancillary development within a palisade fenced compound.

Assessment

7.3 Policy GN1 ‘Settlement Boundaries’ of the West Lancashire Local Plan (WLLP) states that development on protected land will only be permitted where it retains or enhances the rural character of the area’.

7.4 Policy IF3 ‘Service Accessibility and Infrastructure for Growth’ of the WLLP states that the Council will support the delivery of broadband and communications technology to all parts of the Borough and will encourage and facilitate its use in line with national policy.

7.5 In term of national policy, paragraphs 42 - 46 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are relevant and support the expansion of electronic communication networks, including telecommunication networks. Paragraph 43 states that Local Planning Authorities should aim to keep the number of radio and telecommunications masts and the sites for such installations to a minimum consistent with the efficient operation of the network. Existing masts, buildings and other structures should be used, unless the need for a new site has been justified. Where new sites are required, equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.

10 7.6 As mentioned above, the site is located within protected land and development is generally expected to retain or enhance the rural character of the area. Whilst it is accepted that the proposed development will have an impact upon the rural character of the area, the proposed structure is limited in its footprint and is of an open lattice construction. The impact of the mast needs to be balanced against the benefit of improving the telecommunications network and the support given to this by both local and national policy.

7.7 The need for a telecommunications base station in Hesketh Bank has arisen as the existing telecommunications base station at Altys Builders Merchants at Station Road is to be decommissioned. It is understood that the applicants have been given notice by the landowners to remove the existing base station as the lease has expired. This existing mast has an overall height of over 30 metres. The development at Smith Avenue will provide replacement and improved 2G and 3G coverage (as per the submitted Coverage drawing) and will also provide 4G network coverage and capacity.

7.8 In terms of using other existing masts, a technical justification has been submitted. Other than that at Altys which is to be decommissioned, there are three masts within the locality. It has been confirmed that these masts are unsuitable for reasons that they would not meet coverage requirements (particularly to the south) and the structural condition of the masts are not suitable for multiple technologies.

7.9 The proposed site is surrounded by built development within the close proximity, including agricultural buildings and glasshouses. Although it is accepted that the mast will be seen from a number of public vantage points, the nearest residential properties are located approx. 45m from the development on Smith Avenue and 100m from the majority of the nearest dwellings to the east. Given the partial screening from existing trees and built development and its open lattice design, it is my opinion that all of these factors contribute to limiting its visual impact upon the rural character of the area and the amenities of nearby residents.

7.10 Therefore, taking into consideration the limited impact that the development will have on this particular area of protected land and the support given to high quality communication infrastructure by both the Local Plan and the NPPF, on balance I consider the development is acceptable in principle.

7.11 In respect of the remaining grounds for objections received – there are currently no restrictive planning policies for the siting of telecommunications in close proximity to schools or other community facilities. With reference to paragraph 46 of the NPPF this states that “Local Planning Authorities must determine applications on planning grounds. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for the telecommunications systems or determine health safeguards if the proposal meets International Commission guidelines for public exposure”. Therefore, in respect of potential

11 health impacts, the applicant has confirmed compliance with ICNIRP guidelines therefore these grounds of objection are not a material planning consideration.

7.12 In terms of any ecological impacts, an Ecological Assessment plus additional ecology information has been submitted with the application.

7.13 These reports concludes that there are would not be any impact upon protected or sensitive species as a result of the development.

7.14 In terms of Great Crested Newts (GCNs) although it has been confirmed that it is highly unlikely that GCNs would breed in the pond to the west of the mast (due to fish being present in the pond), due to the time of year this could not be confirmed through a survey, so a risk based approach was adopted. On consultation with the County Ecologist it is considered that an appropriate planning condition is added to the permission to ensure that a further survey is carried out at the correct time of year to ensure no impacts upon amphibians including GCNs.

7.15 Further to the County Ecologists written response, clarification has been given by the applicants agent that there is no intention to carry out any works to trees on the site to facilitate the development. A planning condition will be attached to the planning permission to ensure that a method statement is submitted prior to development commencing to protect the existing trees on site.

Summary

7.16 Overall I consider that the proposed scheme will not be harmful to either visual or residential amenity or have any significant ecological implications and is therefore in accordance with Policies GN1, GN3 and IF3 of the Local Plan and should be recommended for approval.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

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

12 4. No development shall take place until a landscaping scheme (demonstrating enhancement of biodiversity) 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. 5. No development shall take place until a Method Statement detailing measures to be taken during construction to protect the health of the existing trees has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures contained in the approved Method Statement shall be fully implemented during construction. 6. No site clearance, site preparation or development work shall take place until an updated mitigation method statement to demonstrate avoidance of impacts on amphibians (including great crested newt) and hedgehog has been submitted and approved by West Lancashire Borough Council. If protected species are suspected or detected during this survey or at any point prior to or during works, then works must cease immediately and advice sought from Natural England regarding the need for a licence. The approved method statement shall be implemented in full. 7. Tree felling, vegetation clearance works, demolition work or other works that may affect nesting birds will be avoided between March and August inclusive, unless the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed by further surveys or inspections. 8. Details of any external lighting associated with the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before being installed on site. Lighting shall be minimal, designed to avoid excessive light spill and shall not illuminate potential bat habitat (e.g. trees, drains) and or/ bird breeding places. The principles of relevant guidance should be followed (e.g. the Bat Conservation Trust and Institution of Lighting Engineers guidance Bats and Lighting in the UK, 2009). Thereafter lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

13 with the provisions of Policy GN1 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. To ensure that the proposed development has no detrimental impact upon protected species or their habitats and is in accordance with Policy EN2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 7. To ensure that the proposed development has no detrimental impact upon protected species or their habitats and is in accordance with Policy EN2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 8. To ensure that the proposed development has no detrimental impact upon protected species or their habitats and is in accordance with Policy EN2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan.

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:

GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development IF3 - Service accessibility and infrastructure for growth

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.

14 No.2 APPLICATION 2014/0704/OUT NO. LOCATION Land Between 101 And 125 Hesketh Lane Tarleton Lancashire

PROPOSAL Outline application for the erection of up to 17 dwellings with associated access and all other matters reserved. APPLICANT Reaper Ltd WARD Tarleton PARISH Tarleton TARGET DATE 10th October 2014

1.0 REFERRAL

1.1 The application was to be determined under the Council’s delegation scheme; however, Councillor Barron has requested it be referred to Committee to consider the impact of the development upon highway safety.

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 None.

3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

3.1 LCC HIGHWAYS -

(28/8/14)

Withdraw the previous S106 request based on the introduction of the CIL levy.

(20/8/14) –

The proposed development should have a negligible impact on highway capacity in the immediate vicinity of the site; Sight lines of 2.4 x 53m to be provided in both directions;

£17,000 contribution requested for the upgrade of two bus stops within the vicinity of the site.

3.2 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES (14/8/14) - Request a condition restricting construction hours.

15 3.3 LCC FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT TEAM (13/8/14) – No objection. Recommends conditions relating to the submission of a drainage scheme and Land Drainage Consent. 3.4 LCC PLANNING CONTRIBUTIONS (19/8/14) – No education contribution required.

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

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

Impact upon an already busy road; Loss of privacy; Noise from future occupants; Loss of wildlife; Quality of life will be altered; Tarleton Village will be altered as a result of all the new housing in the area; No requirement for housing in the area – vacant properties within the area; How will the existing services/amenities cope? Water pressure already poor; Drains cannot cope; Loss of view; Unsightly building site; Health and Safety implications; Affordable block of flats will be an eyesore; No green space left.

5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

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

Planning Statement Ecological Survey and Assessment Design and Access Statement Crime Impact Statement Arboricultural Assessment Agricultural Land Classification Transport Assessment Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy

6.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

6.1 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.

16 6.2 The site lies within the settlement boundary of Tarleton. The eastern third of the site comprises land designated as open space; the remainder of the site has no other policy designation other than being part of the settlement. The following policies are therefore relevant:

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Promoting sustainable transport Delivering a wide choice of quality homes Requiring good design Promoting healthy communities Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

West Lancashire Local Plan Document (WLLP) SP1 – A Sustainable Development Framework for West Lancashire GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development 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

Supplementary Planning Document – Design Guide (January 2008) Supplementary Planning Document - Open Space/ Recreation Provision in New Residential Developments

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

7.1 This is a vacant parcel of land situated on the western side of Hesketh Lane, between no.’s 101 and 125. The site falls under two separate designations in the WLLP. The front/eastern portion (extending for a depth of 45m) is allocated under Policy EN3 as ‘Open Recreation Space’ and the remainder of the site falls within the settlement area of Tarleton. The site is sandwiched between residential development to the north and south, ‘Safeguarded Land’ to the west and Hesketh Lane to the east. There is a mature (approx. 2m high) hedgerow along the frontage.

The Proposal

7.2 The application seeks outline planning consent for the erection of up to 17 no. dwellings with details of the means of access being considered.

17 Principle of Development

7.3 The indicative site layout plan contains the proposed dwellings within the portion of land designated within the settlement area. Therefore policies SP1 and RS1 allow for residential development in principle in this portion of the site.

7.4 In relation to the designated ‘open space’ land at the front of the site, Policy EN3 states that development on open space and sports and recreation facilities will not be permitted where:

Development would affect the open character of the area; Development would restrict access to publicly accessible Green Space; Development would adversely affect biodiversity in the locality; Development would result in the loss of Green Spaces, Green Corridors and the Countryside; The open space contributes to the distinctive form, character and settlement of a settlement; The open space is a focal point within the built up area; The open space provides a setting for important buildings (being listed or of local historic importance) or scheduled ancient monuments.

7.5 The indicative site layout intends to use this area of land as publicly accessible open space, but with an access road through the middle of this part of the site, linking the proposed dwellings with Hesketh Lane. Consequently the proposed development does involve the loss of part of an area of open space.

7.6 Where development would result in the loss of existing open space, Policy EN3 would only permit the development if one of three conditions are met. The third condition is: Successful mitigation takes place and alternative, improved provision is provided in the same locality.

7.7 At present the open space comprises a paddock which is not publicly accessible, whereas it is proposed to make the (remaining) open space publicly accessible. Thus overall, there is a loss in the sense of a decrease in the area of undeveloped land designated as open space, but also a gain in the sense of an increase in publicly accessible open space. I consider this represents “successful mitigation” and should result in alternative, improved (as it will be publicly accessible) provision in the locality. On this basis I consider the proposal to be compliant with Policy EN3 of the WLLP.

Site Layout and Design

7.8 In terms of the layout and design of the development, Policy GN3 of the WLLP and the SPD Design Guide require that new development adds to the local distinctiveness of an area and should clearly show how the general character,

18 scale, layout etc. fits in with the grain of the surrounding area. Sufficient outdoor amenity space should be provided.

7.9 As this is an outline application, only an illustrative layout has been provided. The planning application has effectively been submitted to test the principle of residential development for up to 17 dwellings having an access off Hesketh Lane only and not for the individual layout or design of the dwellings. The indicative layout shows a development of mixed house types, including detached, semi-detached and mews style. Notwithstanding the submitted indicative plan, I consider that some of the plots may need to be reconsidered at the detailed stage to ensure that a satisfactory layout is provided and this may require a reduction in the number of units provided. However, the scale and design of the dwellings will be considered in detail should a Reserved Matters application be forthcoming.

Highway Safety and Car Parking

7.10 The site access will be located almost central within the site frontage, opposite no.’s 124 and 126 Hesketh Lane. Upon entering the site, the access road will divide the area of open space in to two halves. Visibility splays of 53m are afforded in each direction which meets with the County Highways requirements. The proposed access is acceptable to the County Highways Officer who considers that the proposed development will have a negligible impact upon highway safety and capacity in this vicinity.

Ecology

7.11 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, an Ecological Survey and Assessment has been undertaken and submitted with the application. Although a short section of the hedgerow along the frontage will be removed to facilitate the access, the survey states that the proposed development will have no significant adverse effects on designated sites or important habitats. Recommendations have been made that will ensure the development secures opportunities to enhance biodiversity of the site and the local area by appropriate landscape planting and habitat creation for nesting birds. Consequently I am satisfied that the proposals are compliant with Policy EN2 of the WLLP.

Impact upon Residential Amenity

7.12 Residential properties are located to the north, south and east of the site. Although the proposed access will be located opposite no.’s 124 and 126 Hesketh Lane, it is my view that a development of this size and nature should not be of significant detriment to these neighbouring properties in terms of noise and disturbance caused by the additional traffic, particularly as these properties are located on Hesketh Lane which is main commuter route between Hesketh Bank

19 and Tarleton. Based on the illustrative layout, the garden of 101 Hesketh Lane will run parallel with the proposed open space which I consider to be an acceptable arrangement. I am satisfied that given the dimensions of the site an acceptable residential layout could be provided to ensure satisfactory interface distances between existing and proposed residential properties.

7.13 I have received five neighbour representations objecting to the development of this site on the grounds of its negative impact upon wildlife, highway safety and privacy. These concerns have been addressed in my report above. The question of the need for more residential development within this area has also been raised. Policy SP1 of the Local Plan identifies that 800 dwellings are required over the plan period within the northern parishes. This development will make a contribution to that target.

Drainage

7.14 A Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy accompanies the planning application. This states that the site is not at risk from flooding being in flood zone 1 and surface water flows from the development will be connected into the existing watercourse system to the east of the site at Carr Heyes watercourse. Flows would be limited to greenfield rates.

7.15 LCC has been consulted who are the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for West Lancashire. The LLFA have raised no objections to the scheme but do advise a condition requesting details of an updated drainage scheme at the reserved matters stage which reflects the preferred surface water discharge hierarchy at that time.

Developer Contributions

7.16 This development will be expected to contribute to infrastructure through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the following site specific contributions through a S106 agreement.

Affordable and Specialist Housing

7.17 Policy RS2 of the WLLP requires a 35% delivery of affordable housing on sites of 15+ units. A development of 17 units would therefore deliver 6 affordable units. In addition 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.

20 Open Space 7.18 There is no requirement within the recently adopted SPD for the Provision of Public Open Space in New Residential Development for a development of this size to make an off-site or on-site contribution to public open space. However, as referred to in paragraphs 6.5-6.7 above, the development will expose a parcel of land designated as open space within the local plan which is currently inaccessible to the public. The S106 agreement will require details of a scheme for the delivery and maintenance of this open space.

Summary

7.19 I am satisfied that this outline application is acceptable in principle as are the details of the access. The proposal is therefore compliant with the relevant policies in the WLLP and the NPPF.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 That the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to the Assistant Director Planning in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to the applicant entering into a planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure, subject to viability,

(a) the provision of 35% affordable housing and 20% specialist housing for the elderly and; (b) a delivery mechanism and schedule for the ongoing maintenance of the public open space.

8.2 That any planning permission granted by the Assistant Director Planning pursuant to recommendation 8.1 above be subject to the following conditions:

Conditions 1. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. 2. No development shall take place until approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority for the reserved matters namely the layout; scale and appearance of the building(s); and, the landscaping (including landscape maintenance) of the site. 3. The development shall be carried out in accordance with plan reference:

14/031/L01 received by the Local Planning Authority on 9th July 2014

21 14/031/P01 received by the Local Planning Authority on 9th July 2014 A080285-P008 received by the Local Planning Authority on 9th July 2014 14/031/P03 received by the Local Planning Authority on 28th August 2014

insofar as it relates to the means of access to the site and on the land identified on the site location plan. 4. No development shall commence 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. 5. No development shall take place until full details of the finished levels of all parts of the site, including the floor levels of all buildings, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with those details. 6. 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. 7. The recommendations and ecological enhancement contained in section 5.0 of the ERAP Ecological Survey and Assessment dated April 2014 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 2nd September 2014 shall be implemented in full throughout the duration of the development. 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 proposed access shall not be brought into use until the visibility splays measuring 2.0 metres by 53 metres in both directions have been provided, measured along the centre line of the proposed new road from the continuation of the nearer edge of the existing carriageway of Hesketh Lane, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The land within these splays shall be maintained thereafter, free from obstructions such as walls, fences, trees, hedges, shrubs, ground growth or other structures within the splays in excess of 1.0 metre in height above the height at the centre line of the adjacent carriageway. 10. No part of the development shall be brought into use until all the highway works within the adopted highway have been constructed in accordance with a scheme that shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority as part of a section 278 agreement, under the Highways Act 1980. 11. The new estate road for the development shall be constructed in accordance with the Lancashire County Council Specification for Construction of Estate Roads to at least base course level up to the entrance of the site before any development takes place within the site and shall be further extended before any development commences fronting the new access road.

22 Reasons 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The application is in outline and the matters referred to in the Condition are reserved for subsequent approval by the Local Planning Authority. 3. 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. 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. 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. 7. To safeguard protected species and to enhance the biodiversity of the site and so to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy EN2 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 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 ensure adequate visibility for the drivers of vehicles entering and leaving the site 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 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. 11. 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.

Notes 1. The alterations to the existing highway as part of the new works may require changes to the existing street lighting at the expense of the client/developer. 2. The applicant is advised that the new site access will need to be constructed under a section 278 agreement of the 1980 Highways Act. The Highway Authority hereby reserves the right to provide the highway works within the highway associated with this proposal. Provision of the highway works includes design, procurement of the work by contract and supervision of the works. The applicant is advised to contact the Environment Directorate before works begin on site.

23 Further information and advice can be found at www.lancashire.gov.uk and search for "278 agreement". 3. The applicant is advised that to discharge condition 11 that the local planning authority requires a copy of a completed agreement between the applicant and the local highway authority under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or the constitution and details of a Private Management and Maintenance Company confirming funding, management and maintenance regimes. 4. The applicant must obtain Land Drainage Consent from the Consenting Authority (Lancashire County Council), and that the Consenting Authority is informed of the intention to start works on site following approval being obtained.

SP1 - A Sustainable Development Framework for West Lancashire GN1 - Settlement Boundaries GN3 - Criteria for Sustainable Development 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

24 No.3 APPLICATION 2014/0870/OUT NO. LOCATION Cop House Farm Jacksmere Lane Scarisbrick Lancashire L40 9RS

PROPOSAL Outline - Demolition of existing buildings and clearance of site and erection of 6 dwellings plus 4 affordable dwellings. New vehicular/pedestrian access. Including details of access, layout and scale. APPLICANT Mr T Cropper WARD Scarisbrick PARISH Scarisbrick TARGET DATE 17th November 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 2012/1244/FUL - Demolition of existing buildings and clearance of site and erection of 14 affordable dwellings. New vehicular/pedestrian access. REFUSED (14.10. 2013) for the following reason:-

The proposed scheme constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt by resulting in the further sprawl of built development on the site outside of the footprint of the existing buildings. No very special circumstances, which clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, have been demonstrated. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the NPPF, Policy DS2 in the West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan and Policy GN1 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Submission Document.

2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (SCIENTIFIC OFFICER) (05.09.2014) - The site may be contaminated by virtue of its past commercial/industrial use. A suitable condition is therefore suggested.

2.2 UNITED UTILITIES (01/09/14) – In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Building Regulations, the site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water draining in the most sustainable way (soakaway (or other infiltration system), a watercourse or a sewer). To reduce the volume of surface water draining from the site we would promote the use of permeable paving on all driveways and other hard standing areas including footpaths and parking areas. No objection to the proposed provided that a condition is attached to any approval requiring the site to be drained on a separate system.

25 2.3 FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT TEAM (01.09.2014) – It is recommended that the proposed outline application incorporates sustainable drainage systems into the drainage design from the earliest stage and conforms to the British Standards BS8582:2013 – Code of practice for surface water management for development sites. It is also recommended that the applicant consults C697 – The SUDS Manual as a best practice guide to SuDS. There is an ordinary watercourse located on the site. Under the Land Drainage Act 1991, consent is needed to build a culvert or structure which may alter or impede the flow of water on any ordinary watercourse. There is no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of conditions relating to the submission of a drainage strategy and the possible need for Land Drainage Consent.

2.4 COUNTY SURVEYOR (20.09.2014) – No objection as the proposed development should have a negligible impact on highway safety and highway capacity in the immediate vicinity of the site. The total number of vehicular trips to and from the site will increase as a result of the proposed development, the number of light good vehicles, vans and HGVs visiting the site will be reduced. In terms of vehicular accidents in the surrounding area, two have been reported within 100m of the site within the last five years. The sightlines onto Jacksmere Lane from the site access and the private drives are considered to be acceptable. The location of the proposed main access is acceptable and the geometry is to prescribed standards. The internal highway layout is also to an adoptable standard. Adequate off-road parking is provided and is found to be in accordance with Appendix F in the WLLP.

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Scarisbrick Parish Council (02/09/2014) – Objects to the application on the following grounds:-

No indication of how sustainable drainage is to be implemented. The area is susceptible to groundwater flooding and the situation is likely to become worse given the effects of climate change and the EA’s plans to cease satellite pumping operations in the Alt Crossens catchment. The development itself will lead to increased surface water run-off. The number of vehicular movements associated with the site is likely to increase beyond current levels of usage The site lies within the Green Belt where there is a presumption against development unless very special circumstances exist The inclusion of affordable housing is welcomed and the PC concedes that there is need for one and two bedroom affordable properties within the Parish. However the allocation of affordable properties is small and this in itself is not regarded as representing special circumstances The reduction in the overall number of units compared with the last application is noted. The applicant argues that a cumulative reduction in volume compared to existing buildings results in a reduced impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The PC is not entirely convinced by this argument. The case

26 is only made for the part of the site which is described as brownfield and not the entire site The effect on openness also depends on the bulk and character of individual buildings as well as layout. There is still a considerable area of the site that is open and should not be compromised.

3.2 No other representations have been received

4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

1.1 The following documents have been submitted in support of the application:-

Utilities Statement Tree Survey Report Site Waste Management Scheme Planning Statement Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Design and Access Statement Water Vole Method Statement Water Vole Survey Ecological Assessment

5.0 RELEVANT 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 will be assessed.

5.2 The whole of the application site is allocated as Green Belt in the current Local Plan

National Planning Policy Framework

Delivering sustainable development Promoting sustainable transport Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good design Protecting Green Belt land Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027) DPD

SP1 (A Sustainable Development Framework for West Lancashire) GN1 (Settlement Boundaries) GN3 (Criteria for Sustainable Development GN4 (Demonstrating Viability) GN5 (Sequential Tests)

27 EC1 (The Economy and Employment Land EC2 (The Rural Economy) RS1 (Residential Development) RS2 (Affordable and Specialist Housing) IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choice IF3 – Service Accessibility and Infrastructure for Growth EN1 – Low Carbon Development and Energy Infrastructure EN2 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Natural Environment

5.5 In addition the following supplementary documents are material considerations:

The Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework SPD – Design Guide (Jan 2008) Planning Obligations in Lancashire

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

6.1 The site is located to the south of Jacksmere Lane, to the west of the settlement boundary of Scarisbrick. The whole of the site lies within the Green Belt but can be described in two parts.

6.2 To the southern part of the site lies an area of open storage of materials and machinery measuring approximately 32m x 53m. There is no planning history attributable to this area and it is unclear how long any specific use/s have taken place on this part of the site; its status (i.e. whether or not is could be classified as a greenfield or brownfield site) is therefore uncertain and leaves the Council with no option but to consider it to be a greenfield site.

6.3 To the forward part of the site an area of approximately 41 x 46 metres accommodates an established business taking in root crops (mainly carrots) from local producers to top and pack the product mainly for foods producers. The site includes agricultural type sheds and hardstanding areas. I have been advised that this area had been used for this purpose in excess of ten years and has never processed produce from the ‘holding’ on which it sits. This description and extent of use fits with the Council’s knowledge of the site. This defines the operation as outside the definition of agriculture and attributes brownfield status to that part of the site.

The Proposal

6.4 Outline planning consent is sought for demolition of the existing buildings and clearance of the site and the erection of 10 dwellings (6 for the open market and 4 affordable units) with a new vehicular/pedestrian access. Details of access, layout and scale have been submitted for consideration while landscaping and appearance have been reserved for consideration at a later date.

28 6.5 Four dwellings are proposed within the rear part of the site to reflect the Council’s view that this part of the land remains as Greenfield land within the Green Belt. These four dwellings (4 x 2 bed detached bungalows) are sited side by side, facing towards Jacksmere Lane with 8m deep rear garden areas.

6.6 On the forward part of the site, which is recognised as having a brownfield status, 6 dwellings are proposed, with a mixture of 1 x 4 bed detached dwelling and 5 x 3 bed detached dwellings. The proposed layout within this part of the site shows three detached dwellings fronting onto Jacksmere Lane, two further dwellings located close to the western boundary of the site and one close to the eastern boundary of the site.

6.7 On the matter of scale, each of the four proposed affordable units would have a floor area of 78m2. The proposed market dwellings to the front of the site would have floor areas ranging from 43.2m2 to 78.6m2. The approximate heights of these dwellings would be 8m to ridge.

Principle of Development – Green Belt

4.1 Paragraph 79 of the NPPF retains the government’s view that great importance is attached to Green Belts. It states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and their permanence.

6.9 Section 9 of the NPPF ‘Protecting the Green Belt’ states that as with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

6.10 Paragraph 89, Section 9 of the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this include:

Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings) which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it, than the existing development. Limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan

6.11 Policies RS1 and RS2 in the emerging local plan identifies ‘limited affordable housing’ as being up to 4 units.

6.12 The proposed development, in terms of the layout and number of dwellings, has been influenced by the status of the land as outlined in above. With respect to the rear of the site the applicant has included four units to respect the ‘very limited’

29 amount of affordable housing considered appropriate within the Green Belt (greenfield sites). The applicant has submitted a sequential test to demonstrate that there are no suitable alternative sites in non-Green Belt areas in accordance with Policy GN5 in the emerging local plan. On this basis, with reference to the development within the rear of the site only, I am satisfied that the principle of four affordable units in this area is acceptable.

6.13 With respect to the brownfield part of the site, given the wording of NPPF paragraph 89, the key question is whether the proposed development would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. If there is found to be a greater impact, the proposals are inappropriate development, if there is no greater impact then the proposals are not inappropriate development.

Openness

6.14 The concept of openness has been defined through a number of appeal decisions but can be summarised as being the absence of development rather than primarily about visual effects. In considering the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt it is important to bear in mind the definition of previously development land provided in Annex 2 of the NPPF as not only land occupied by a permanent structure and its curtilage, but also, ‘any associated fixed structure infrastructure’.

6.15 The combined footprint of the proposed development (located within the brownfield part of the site) would be approximately 358m2. This represents an approximate 50% reduction in built development. It is also noted that there would be a reduction in overall built form as the combined volume of the proposed development is significantly lower than that existing.

6.16 The siting of the dwellings generally follows the pattern of the buildings existing on site. Development is concentrated within the northwest part of the application site and largely replaces the existing large processing building and the associated office buildings. It is accepted that the proposed development spreads into areas which are currently free of built development along the road frontage. This area is currently hardstanding and used for associated parking/manoeuvring of vehicles. The use of this part of the site for frontage housing is considered to be visually beneficial to the surrounding street scene (this will be discussed in more detail below) and represents a minimal spread into an undeveloped area of the site. Furthermore, the proposed dwellings would be lower than the main building they would replace and therefore on balance I consider that the proposed development in this part of the site does not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. With respect to plot 10, this is closely situated to existing office accommodation. The removal of these buildings and the siting of the proposed dwelling close to the eastern boundary would result in the creation of an open aspect through to the rear of the site which is presently not available. Whilst plot 10 encroaches into an area presently free from built development,

30 there are benefits to its siting in terms of the creation of a central ‘open’ aspect within the site. In addition and continuing on the matter of siting, the proposed development, by concentrating development more to the front of the site, creates a built form which fits well with the ribbon form of development in the vicinity of the site.

6.17 It should be noted at this point that the main difference between the current proposal and that which was refused under reference 2012/1244/FUL, is the reduction in the scale of development. The number of units within the brownfield part of the site has been reduced from 10 to 6 and the current proposal is more reflective of the existing pattern of development on site.

6.18 On the basis of the above, on balance I consider that the openness test has been met and the proposal satisfies the requirements of paragraph 89 of the NPPF.

Principle of Development – Employment Land

6.19 The current use of the site, for commercial purposes, leads to a designation of employment use.

6.20 Policy EC1 ‘The Economy and Employment Land’ of the West Lancashire Local Plan (Submitted Version) is also a material consideration in assessing the principle of this development and states that “the re-development of existing individual employment sites for other uses will be considered where a viability case can be put forward (in line with Policy GN4) and where the provisions of Policy EC2 and EC3 are met, where relevant”.

6.21 Policy EC2, ‘The Rural Economy’, states that the Council will protect the continued employment use of existing employment sites in rural areas. This includes any type of employment use, including agriculture and farming, and is not merely be restricted to B1, B2 and B8 land uses. Where it can be robustly demonstrated that the site is unsuitable for an ongoing viable employment use (in accordance with the requirements of Policy GN4), the Council will consider alternative uses where this is in accordance with other policies in the Local Plan.

6.22 The proposed development would involve the loss of an active premises involving the processing of vegetables for the food industry, therefore a viability case needs to be demonstrated based on Policy GN4 of the emerging Local Plan.

6.23 Policy GN4 ‘Demonstrating Viability’ states that the Council will seek to retain existing commercial/industrial and retail premises, together with agricultural/horticultural workers’ dwellings, unless it can be demonstrated that one of the following tests can be met a) the continued use of the site / premises for its existing use is no longer viable in terms of its operation of the existing use, building age and format and that it is not commercially viable to redevelop the land or refurbish the premises for its existing use. In these circumstances, and where

31 appropriate, it will also need to be demonstrated that there is no realistic prospect of a mixed-use scheme for the existing use and a compatible use; or b) the land / premises is no longer suitable for the existing use when taking into account access / highways issues (including public transport), site location and infrastructure, physical constraints, environmental considerations and amenity issues. The compatibility of the existing use with adjacent uses may also be a consideration; or c) marketing of the land / property indicates that there is no demand for the land / property in its existing use. In addition to the above Policy GN4 states that details of the current occupation of the buildings, and where this function would be relocated, will also be required.

6.24 The applicant has submitted a case supporting the loss of the current employment use. This case centres on the existing condition of the site and associated buildings, the land owners needs in terms of ensuring the continued success and expansion of the business and the capital costs associated with this. I accept that the options available to the land owner are limited in terms of modernising the existing site from a cost point of view. In addition, the site lies within a landscape which is defined by residential and agricultural developments and the relocation of this commercial venture, given the limited options of its use due to its current condition, is accepted as being the optimal choice for the landowner. The site is further constrained by its close proximity to neighbouring residential dwellings. Given the relatively small size of the site (in commercial terms), a mixed use scheme would not appear to be a viable option.

6.25 Given the specific set of circumstances attributable to this case in respect of the loss of the current employment use and the case put forward by the applicant, I consider that compliance has been achieved with Policy GN4 in the WLLP in that the continued use of the site is no longer viable due to the building age and format and it is not commercially viable to redevelop the land or refurbish the premises for its existing use. In addition there is no realistic prospect of a mixed use scheme for the existing use and a compatible use given the realistic site limitations outlined by the applicant.

Design/Layout

6.26 The proposed layout of the scheme is comprehensive and legible. It provides suitable interface distances between the proposed buildings and suitable separation distances between them and surrounding properties. The proposed use of detached dwellings along the frontage of Jacksmere Lane responds well to the existing pattern of development in the area. Whilst the site is located within the Green Belt, in view of the existing built form of ribbon development along this part of Jacksmere Lane, the site would not be seen as an uncharacteristic modern estate isolated from other residential areas

32 6.27 All of the dwellings would be provided with rear/side garden amenity spaces. Some frontage amenity space would also be provided to plots 2 and 3 which would be beneficial to the surrounding street scene. Parking is generally provided to the front and side of the each dwelling ensuring easy access and security.

6.28 Overall I am satisfied that the layout and design of the proposed development is acceptable and is in accordance with local plan policies. The matter of appearance has been reserved for consideration at a later date.

Impact on Neighbouring Land Uses

6.29 In terms of the impact upon neighbouring land uses, sufficient interface distances would be provided between the proposed dwellings fronting onto Jacksmere Lane and those on the opposing side of the highway, i.e. more than 21m. There are no neighbouring properties to the west or south. In term of the neighbouring property to the east, plot 10 would be located in close proximity to the eastern boundary. However, although the matter of appearance has been reserved for future consideration, it has been indicated that the dwelling on this plot would be designed to ensure that it would not result in any overlooking of loss of privacy of the neighbouring site by directing all outlook away from the first floor rear elevation. The neighbouring property, No. 73 Jacksmere Lane, has one habitable room window facing towards the site. The proposed layout would ensure that no part of the development would impede the outlook from this window or limit daylight/sunlight.

6.30 In terms of amenity space, some of the proposed plots do not meet the guidance in the Council’s SPD Design Guide regarding the provision of 10m deep rear gardens. However the bungalows to the rear are set within wide plots with an open aspect over farmland to the rear. Similarly plots 4 and 5 would have additional amenity space to the side of each dwelling and would also benefit from rear open views. With respect to plot 10, I am satisfied that the site would provide a sufficient level of private amenity space in a wraparound form.

6.31 Overall I am satisfied that the proposed development is in accordance with Policies GN3 and EN4 of the WLLP and the Council’s SPD ‘Design Guide’ and would cause no significant harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

Highways

6.32 The proposed development would include a new main access off Jacksmere Lane along with further vehicular access points to plots 1, 2 and 3. The positioning of these is considered to offer acceptable levels of visibility. Parking provision throughout the development is considered acceptable with each dwelling benefiting from two parking spaces (plot one would benefit from 3 spaces) which is in accordance with Policy GN3 in the WLLP. The Highway

33 Authority has confirmed that the proposed development would result in a minimal increase in vehicular movements during rush hour and while the total number of vehicular trips will increase, the number of light goods vehicles, vans and HGVs visiting the site will be reduced. On balance therefore, I am satisfied that the proposed development will not result in highway safety concerns or impact upon the free flow of traffic in the immediate locality. The inclusion of the footpath to the front of the site is considered beneficial to pedestrian safety along this section of the highway. The Highway Authority has confirmed that the geometry of the main site access is to prescribed design standards and the internal layout is also to an adoptable standard.

Landscaping/Ecology

6.33 The proposed development will result in the loss of an existing hedge along the frontage of the site. However additional landscaping is proposed along the site boundaries and I am therefore satisfied that the loss of the front hedge is adequately compensated for by the proposed landscaping scheme, further details of which could be secured by way of a planning condition.

6.34 The submitted ecological information concluded that the site was of limited ecological value. There is no evidence that the existing buildings were suitable for bat habitation but a precautionary approach to their removal is recommended and this could be secured by way of a planning condition. Whilst the site is identified as being located within a Sensitive Bird Area, there is very limited foraging habitat on site due to its current use. Under the previous scheme, the County Ecologist identified that the proposed surface water drainage into an existing watercourse may have an impact on water vole in this area. However the applicant appropriately demonstrated that this issue could be addressed through suitable mitigation measures and I am satisfied that this remains the case under the current proposal.

Drainage

6.35 The applicant proposes to connect foul flows to an existing 150mm adopted foul sewer present in Jacksmere Lane. This is considered acceptable and has been agreed as such by United Utilities. In respect of surface water drainage, it is proposed to direct outfall to the existing water course located approximately 120m south of the application site. The flow to the existing water course would be attenuated to greenfield run off. The applicant has discounted the use of soakaways or other infiltration methods due to the ground type in the area and therefore the proposed arrangement mirrors the hierarchy advocated by the NPPF and Building Regulations. Given the outline nature of the application, further details of the proposed scheme would be obtained through a planning condition.

34 6.36 As the applicant has, in principle, provided details of suitable separate drainage system, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy EN10 of the WLRLP and Policy IF3 of the emerging local plan.

Developer Contributions

6.37 This development will be expected to contribute to infrastructure through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). In addition the terms and conditions of the affordable housing units would be secured via a planning obligation.

Summary

6.38 The principle of the proposed development is considered acceptable and compliant with the NPPF and Policies GN1 and Policy RS1 in the WLLP. The details submitted (access, layout and scale) are considered acceptable and in compliance with relevant local plan policies. On this basis the proposed development is recommended for approval.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to the Assistant Director Planning in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to the applicant entering into a planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure, subject to viability, (a) the terms and conditions of the affordable housing

7.2 That any planning permission granted by the Assistant Director Planning pursuant to recommendation 7.1 above be subject to the following conditions:

Conditions 1. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. 2. No development shall take place until approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority for the reserved matters namely the appearance the buildings and the landscaping (including landscape maintenance) of the site. 3. The development shall be carried out in accordance with plan reference:

Drawing no 111 Rev 05 received by the Local Planning Authority on 18th September 2014

Drawing no 115, MCI.TO.11 and 4313.01 Rev A received by the Local Planning Authority on 11th August 2014

35 4. The recommendations/conclusions made within Section 6 of the Ecological Assessment (TEP, October 2012), Section 4 the Water Vole Survey (TEP, April 2013) and Section 2 of the Water Vole Method Statement (TEP, April 2013) shall be adhered to at all times. 5. No development on the construction phase 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. 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 or out buildings shall be erected or undertaken without the express written permission of the Local Planning Authority. 7. No development shall take place until full details of the finished levels of all parts of the site, including the floor levels of all buildings, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with those details. 8. For the full period of construction, facilities shall be available on site for the cleaning of the wheels of vehicles leaving the site and such equipment shall be used as necessary to prevent mud and stones being carried onto the highway. The roads adjacent to the site shall be mechanically swept as required during the full construction period 9. None of the dwellings served from the proposed new access road shall be occupied until the visibility splays measuring 2.4 metres by 102 metres in both directions, measured along the centre line of the proposed new road from the continuation of the nearer edge of the existing carriageway of Jacksmere Lane are provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The land within these splays shall be adopted as part of the adopted highway and constructed as footway 10. The dwellings on plots 1 to 3 shall not be occupied until the visibility splays as shown on drawing 139200/111/rev 5 "Proposed Site Plan" measured along the centre line of the new private drives onto Jacksmere Lane are provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The land within these splays shall be adopted as part of the adopted highway and constructed as footway 11. The new estate road for the residential development shall be constructed in accordance with the Lancashire County Council Specification for Construction of Estate Roads to at least base course level up to the entrance of the site compound before any development takes place within the site and shall be further extend before any development commences fronting the new access road 12. No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until a scheme for the construction of the site access and the off-site works of highway improvement has been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority 13. No construction work 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

36 in writing as acceptable by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, no surface water from this development should communicate with the public sewer network either through direct or indirect means.

Reasons 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The application is in outline and the matters referred to in the Condition are reserved for subsequent approval by the Local Planning Authority. 3. 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. 4. To safeguard protected species and to enhance the biodiversity of the site and so to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy EN2 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 5. 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. 6. In order to avoid conflict with the Local Planning Authority's policy of strict control of development in the Green Belt and to ensure compliance with Policy GN1 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework. 7. 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. 8. To prevent stones and mud being carried onto the public highway to the detriment of road safety. 9. To ensure adequate visibility at the street junction or site access in the interest of highway safety 10. To ensure adequate visibility at the street junction or site access in the interest of highway safety in accordance with Quality of Development Policy and Transport Policy in the Local Plan. 11. To ensure that satisfactory access is provided to the site before the development hereby permitted becomes operative. 12. 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. 13. 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.

Notes 1. The applicant must obtain Land Drainage Consent from the Consenting Authority (Lancashire County Council), and that the Consenting Authority is informed of the intention to start works on site following approval being obtained.

37 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 GN4 (Demonstrating Viability) GN5 (Sequential Tests) EC1 (The Economy and Employment Land EC2 (The Rural Economy) RS1 (Residential Development) RS2 (Affordable and Specialist Housing) IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choice IF3 – Service Accessibility and Infrastructure for Growth EN1 – Low Carbon Development and Energy Infrastructure EN2 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Natural Environment

38 No.4 APPLICATION 2013/1217/COU NO. LOCATION Land To The Rear Of 8 To 10 Station Road Banks Lancashire

PROPOSAL Change of use from allotment/general storage land to exercising area for four dogs (including two working police dogs) and retention of close boarded fence. Importation of top soil to level the land. APPLICANT Ms K Jones WARD North Meols PARISH North Meols TARGET DATE 30th September 2014

1.0 REFERRAL

1.1 This application was to be determined under the Councils delegation scheme, however, Councillor Blane requested that it be referred to the Committee to consider the potential impact of noise pollution upon neighbouring properties.

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 None relevant.

3.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

3.1 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS (18/08/2014) - No objection to the proposed change of use and is of the opinion that the proposed change of use should have a negligible impact on highway safety and highway capacity within the immediate vicinity of the site.

3.2 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (12/08/2014) - no comment.

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (18/11/2013) - No objections to, or observations on this application.

(22/01/2014) - No evidence that the top soil used was contaminated. Visual inspection of the land can sometimes indicate whether significant contamination is present but in this instance there were no obvious signs of this. This together with the end use of the land being only for dog training purposes does not consider that there is a risk to human health. Do not consider this land to be contaminated under the EPA 1990 contaminated land regulations.

39 3.4 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT (13/02/2014) - The small scale of the proposal would not trigger a response from Flood Risk Management, as it is classed as a minor application for determination by the Local Authority.

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Four letters have been received from neighbouring properties supporting the development on the grounds that: Dogs have never caused a disturbance Applicant is a responsible and experienced dog handler Dogs do not cause a smell, do not bark and the property is kept tidy. Improved appearance of the land.

4.2 Two letters and one petition signed by five addresses have been received from neighbouring properties objecting / showing concern regarding the development on the grounds that: Commercial enterprise on protected land Infilling of a watercourse The only fencing you can erect on protected land is post and wire The plot is in Flood Zone 3 – high probability. The plot is within 20m of a water course. There is a letter for 180 tons of top soil this is incorrect. Photographs show soil is at least 2 feet deep. Do not object if the land is used for exercising for dogs, however would it allow in the future building of kennels, stables – in which case would object.

5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

5.1 Planning Statement

5.2 Receipt from C J Property Repairs

6.0 LOCAL PLAN ALLOCATION

6.1 The application site is located within protected land as designated in the West Lancashire Local Plan Proposal Map.

6.2 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)

40 7.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Site

7.1 The application site relates to an area of land to the rear of no 8 – 10 Station Road, Banks, with a site area of approx. 0.11 hectares. The land is accessed via no.8 Station Road which is within the ownership of the applicant. The site is located within protected land as designated in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

Proposal

7.2 This application seeks to retain: A change of use of the land from allotments / general storage land to an exercising and training area for four dogs (including two working police dogs).

A close boarded fence with concrete base panels and posts measuring a maximum height of 2.12m.

The importation of top soil to level the land

It is also proposed to install a French drain.

Principle of Development

7.3 In terms of development within 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.

7.4 Aerial photography from 2010 shows that the land prior to the development was grassed over, open and free of development. Since the applicant has owned the land, works to the land have been carried out to include erecting a fence to the boundaries and also the laying of top soil to level the land to enable the training and exercising of four dogs. The land has also been seeded with grass. The land subject of this planning application although separated from the residential curtilage of no. 8 by means of a low fence, can be accessed freely by means of a gate from the rear amenity area of no.8.

7.5 Generally development for the domestication and urbanisation of protected land is resisted as it undermines the rural character of the land. In this case it appears that the land has not taken on a significantly different visual appearance than before the works took place - other than a timber boarded fence which has been erected to the north and eastern boundaries.

7.6 As the application site bounds existing residential garden areas to the east on Hoole Lane (which are also fenced to the boundary) and adjoins protected land with glasshouse structures to the north and west I am mindful that a fence of up

41 to 2m in height could be erected at the boundaries under permitted development rights (Schedule 2, Part 2). Therefore I do not consider that the fencing which marginally exceeds the permitted development height impacts detrimentally upon the rural character of the area. No additional hardstanding or buildings are proposed on the land. It is also worth noting that as the site is located outside of the residential curtilage of no. 8 it would not benefit from householder permitted development rights and any future development on the site would therefore require planning permission.

7.7 This application is to use the land to train and exercise four dogs, two of which are retired police dogs and two of which are current working police dogs. The applicant’s job is such that she handles and cares for police dogs and therefore it is not appropriate to train the dogs in a public place. The applicant proposes that the dogs will be exercised / trained on the application site before and after work and on the applicant’s days off. Kennels are located within the residential curtilage of the applicant’s property, no.8 Station Road. It is my opinion given the low intensity use of the land, which will only be used by the applicant and her four dogs and that the application site is separated from the residential curtilage of no.8 (by means of boundary treatment), I am satisfied that the use of the land does not impact detrimentally upon the rural character of the area.

Impact upon neighbouring properties

7.8 Letters of support have been received from three local addresses and comment that the dogs have never caused a disturbance and the site is kept tidy.

7.9 Two letters of concern have also been received from neighbouring properties. The main areas of concern relate to the land is protected (see paragraph 7.3 - 7.7); future building on the site (see paragraph 7.7);disputing the amount of top soil that has been imported and concerns that development has infilled a watercourse and may create flooding as the plot is in Flood Zone 3 and is within 20m of a watercourse.

7.10 In the light of concerns expressed regarding draining and flooding and since the submission of this planning application in November 2013 significant negotiations have taken place in relation to the site drainage. It is now proposed that a French drain will be installed to the western boundary of the site and will then drain across the neighbouring property to the west (within the ownership of No.18 Station Road) connecting to the existing culverted watercourse. As the planning application is retrospective, a planning condition will be added to the permission to ensure that the works are carried out within 3 months of the date of the permission.

7.11 I have also consulted the Councils Environmental Health Officer in relation to any potential noise impact from the dogs and no objections have been raised. Although the land will be used for the training and exercising of dogs by a police dog handler, the dogs are kennelled within the residential curtilage of no.8. No

42 concerns to date have been raised by local residents in relation to disturbance from the dogs and if the future this matter was a concern it can be dealt with outside of planning legislation under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to noise nuisance.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 That planning permission be GRANTED.

Conditions 1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with details shown on the following plans:-

Plan reference ‘Drainage Plan’; ‘Western Elevation’; ‘Eastern Elevation’; ‘Site Block Plan’; ‘Site Plan’ and ‘Proposed Drainage Scheme’ - received by the Local Planning Authority on 05/08/2014.

2. Within 3 months of the date of this decision, the approved drainage scheme as detailed on drawing ‘Drainage plan’ and ‘proposed drainage scheme’ received by the Local Planning Authority on 05/08/2014 shall be implemented in full and retained thereafter for the duration of the development.

Reasons 1. 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.

2. In the avoidance of doubt and 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.

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 Policies in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document:

GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development

43 No.5 APPLICATION 2014/0675/FUL NO. LOCATION 8 Chapel Lane Banks Southport Lancashire PR9 8EY

PROPOSAL Retrospective consent for a detached garage at rear of dwelling and masonry boundary walling at front of dwelling. APPLICANT D Nicholson WARD North Meols PARISH North Meols TARGET DATE 11th September 2014

1.0 REFERRAL

1.1 This application was to be determined under the Councils delegation scheme, however, Councillor Blane requested that it be referred to the Committee to consider the impact of the loss of amenity to neighbouring properties and to assess the potential over development of the site.

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2014/0147/FUL Two storey side extension. Part two storey/part first floor rear extension. GRANTED

2008/0912/FUL Part two storey/part first floor extension to side/rear. WITHDRAWN 05.12.2008

1993/0321 Two storey domestic extension at side, single storey extension at rear and canopy to front elevation. GRANTED 19.05.1993

3.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

None

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

2 letters of objection have been received and can be summarised as follows:

Font wall: Safety concerns for pedestrians and car users Local primary school is close by and the children would not be visible behind pillars Lack of visibility from within the site when exiting onto Chapel Lane.

44 Garage Garage removes light from the garden of number 6

5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

None

6.0 LOCAL PLAN ALLOCATION

The site is within the key sustainable village as designated in the West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan.

National Planning Policy Framework Requiring good design

West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027) DPD Policy SP1- A sustainable Development Framework for West Lancashire Policy GN1 – Settlement Boundaries Policy GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development Policy IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choices

Supplementary Planning Document, Design Guide (Jan 2008)

7.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES

The Site

7.1 The site relates to a semi-detached dwelling located to the south eastern side of Chapel Lane. The property has about a 17m rear garden which is bound by a 1.80m high timber fence. Within the rear garden a large detached outbuilding is being constructed and work is also underway on the side and rear extensions. Front gates, walls and pillars have also been erected at the property.

The Proposal

7.2 Retrospective planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached outbuilding located within the rear garden and the erection of a front boundary wall.

7.3 The outbuilding measures 6.55m by 3.70m and has a pitched roof which measures 4m to the ridge and 2.50m to the eaves.

7.4 The front wall measures 1.10m with pillars measuring 1.80m. It is constructed from artificial York standstone blocks with ornamental coping piers.

45 Assessment

7.5 The main considerations for the determination of this application are; i) Design/appearance ii) Impact upon neighbouring properties iii) Highways

Design/appearance

Front boundary wall

7.6 Policy GN3 provides detailed criteria relating to the design and layout of development; in particular development should respect visual amenity and complement or enhance any attractive features and/or local distinctiveness within its surroundings through sensitive design, including appropriate landscaping and boundary treatment. The Council’s adopted SPD on Design also advises that it is important to consider whether existing hard or soft landscaping contributes to the character of the overall development.

7.7 The application property is sited within a row of residential dwellings which mainly have low walling/ fencing to the front of the properties. The introduction of the 1.80m high pillars introduces a feature which is not in keeping with the general street scene and looks at odds with the semi detached cottage design of the dwelling itself. Whilst I appreciate that there are examples of other pillars of similar heights as is proposed in this application, the other examples in the row are coupled with low walling which reduces the overall dominance of the wall within the street scene.

7.8 It is considered that the proposed walling and pillars dominate the immediate street scene and results in a prominent feature which is at odds with the general grain of the street scene and the character of the host dwelling.

Outbuilding

7.9 The proposed outbuilding is sited within the rear garden of the dwelling. It is of a size and scale which is considered appropriate. Whilst the site has recently benefitted from the approval of a two storey rear and side extension, I do not consider that the development constitutes overdevelopment of the site noting the size of the plot. The existing rear building line of Chapel Lane is sprawling with outbuildings and rear extensions stretching the original parameters of individual plots, consequently the siting of the outbuilding within the garden does not impact detrimentally upon the rear building line. Overall I consider that the scale, height and siting of the outbuilding is acceptable.

46 Impact upon neighbouring properties

7.10 Owing to the existing boundary treatments and single storey outbuildings within the rear garden of number 10 Chapel Lane I do not consider that the outbuilding would impact detrimentally upon the amenities of this neighbouring property.

7.11 The rear garden of number 6 Chapel Lane would experience some overshadowing as a result of the outbuilding however I do not consider that this would be significant. Furthermore the useable garden area for this property is located mainly to the rear of the outbuilding thereby the impact to the overall amenity of this neighbour is considered acceptable.

7.12 Roller shutters are proposed on the front elevation of the outbuilding which when opened would allow some views onto the rear of the number 6. However taking into consideration the single storey nature of the building, the existing boundary treatment, the recently approved rear extension and the slightly angled nature of the dwelling from the outbuilding I do not consider that any significant loss of privacy or overlooking would result to either party.

7.13 I question whether the outbuilding is intended to be used as a garage noting that the garage door is set significantly higher than ground level and the proposed two storey side elevation would prevent vehicular access. As such a condition could be attached to any approval to ensure that the outbuilding would be used for purposes ancillary to the dwelling.

7.14 Apart from the highways issues which are mentioned below I do not consider that the proposed walling and pillars would impact detrimentally upon the amenities of any neighbouring properties.

Highway safety

7.15 The front boundary walling and particularly the 1.80m high pillars have a detrimental impact upon highway safety within the area. The height of the pillars results in significant reduced visibility when exiting the site. The pillars make it difficult to see oncoming traffic and pedestrians and as such represent a highway hazard to road users and pedestrians alike. Furthermore the pavement in this location is only about 1.50m wide which would not allow a vehicle to utilise the pavement width in an attempt to gain better visibility. Similarly when exiting the driveway of number 10 Chapel Lane the pillar obstructs views of the highway to the south western direction which results in an obstruction for the residents of the neighbouring property. Consequently I find that the pillars represent harm to the safety of road users and pedestrians within the area and as such are in direct conflict with Policy GN3, criterion 2. vii which states that development should ‘incorporate suitable and safe access and road layout design’.

47 Summary

7.16 The outbuilding is considered acceptable in terms of its siting, scale, design and form. It is not thought that it results in any significant harm to the amenities or privacy of neighbouring properties.

7.17 The front pillars and walling have a detrimental impact upon the safety of traffic users and pedestrians owing to the height restricting visibility when exiting the application site and from number 10 Chapel Lane. Consequently the application fails to accord with Policy GN3 of the WLLP and should be recommended for refusal.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal 1. The front boundary pillars result in inadequate visibility splays in both directions leading to poor visibility when exiting the site to the detriment of the safe and free flow of traffic on the highway and thereby in conflict with the provisions of Policy GN3, criteria 2. Vii in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 2. By virtue of its height the front boundary wall and pillars result in a prominent and incongruous feature which is detrimental to the appearance of the street scene and the host building and as such is contrary to Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan.

48 No.6 APPLICATION NO. 2013/1258/OUT LOCATION Henry Alty Limited, Station Road, Hesketh Bank 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 DEFERRAL

1.1 The application was deferred at the last Committee in order for the applicant to provide a timetable for when ecological surveys will be undertaken on the site; phasing details to provide certainty regarding delivery of employment uses and affordable housing; and further information regarding the availability of funding for secondary school places.

2.0 RECENT RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 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.

2.2 2003/1462 GRANTED (20.05.2004) Erection of building for the storage, sale and distribution of horticultural supplies.

2.3 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.

2.4 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.

2.5 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)

49 2.6 Adjacent site 2013/0858/OUT GRANTED (14.10.2013) Outline - Three detached dwellings including details of access.

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

3.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

3.1 SPORT ENGLAND (4.12.13) – no comments

3.2 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.

3.3 LANCASHIRE CONSTABULARY (18.06.14 and 12.12.13) - development should be built to Secured By Design Standards. Detailed design advice provided.

3.4 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.

3.5 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.

3.6 CANAL AND RIVER TRUST (30.06.14 and 23.12.13) – No objections

3.7 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.

50 3.8 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.

3.9 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.

3.10 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.

3.11 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.

3.12 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.

LCC (PLANNING CONTRIBUTIONS) (24.09.2014) – In terms of secondary school places, housing developments in the area are taken into consideration and LCC monitor closely the position in terms of school places.

51 If a need for additional primary or secondary places for this area arises, LCC will consider the options at local schools in terms of possible expansion in accordance with the criteria for expansion laid out in the authority's Strategy for School Places and Capital Investment which would also need to take into account the feasibility of expanding individual schools. Any additional places will be allocated in accordance with the school's admission policy. If any change to the pattern of school provision is proposed in the future, we would consult with the local community.

3.13 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

52 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.

3.14 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

53 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

3.15 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

54 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.

3.16 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.

3.17 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.

55 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).

56 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.

57 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

58 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.

59 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.

3.18 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

60 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,

61 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

62 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

63 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

64 (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.

65 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.

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 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.

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

4.2 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.

4.3 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.

4.4 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

67 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

4.5 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

68 river corridor as a linear park required and impact on environment. Applicant has not adequately answered LCC concerns.

4.6 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.

4.7 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

69 any approval in order to protect important land designations and habitats. Re- iterate great concern regarding land affected by contamination.

4.8 Hesketh with Becconsall and Tarleton Action Group (04.09.14) – Lack of masterplanning in direct contradiction of Policy EC3, designation of linear park appears to have been ignored, insufficient details about the contamination of the site in contravention of the NPPF, residential development is excluded from the permitted activities on the Coastal Zone, loss of existing employment on the site, development of a greenfield site in contradiction of Policy GN1, no account taken of nature conservation, landscape history and coastal zone, lack of infrastructure, impact on the biodiversity of the site, public open space should be provided on the greenfield site and designated as linear park, coastal zone and land of local historical importance, there is no reason for the whole area to be developed as the natural growth in the area will be met by other planning approvals. 4.9 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

70 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.

4.10 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

71 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.

4.11 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.

4.12 159 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). A further three objections have been received from local residents since the September Committee Meeting. 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

72 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

73 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

74 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

75 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

76 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

77 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

4.13 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.

5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

5.1 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

78 6.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

6.1 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.

6.2 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

6.3 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

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

7.1 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

79 western boundary comprises a mix of residential properties, leading off Greenways, Astland Gardens, Station Road, Mill Lane and Booths supermarket.

7.2 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.

7.3 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.

7.4 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

7.5 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.

80 Principle of Development

National Planning Policy Framework

7.6 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.

7.7 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.

7.8 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

7.9 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

81 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.

7.10 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.

7.11 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.

7.12 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.

7.13 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

7.14 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.

7.15 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

82 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

7.16 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

7.17 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

7.18 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

83 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

7.19 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.

7.20 Access to the southern part of the site is proposed via a new priority junction between 264 and 266 Hesketh Lane 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.

7.21 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

84 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.

7.22 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

7.23 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.

7.24 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.

7.25 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.

7.26 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

85 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.

7.27 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

7.28 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).

7.29 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

86 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.

7.30 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.

7.31 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.

7.32 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

87 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.

7.33 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.

7.34 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.

7.35 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.

88 7.36 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.

7.37 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.

7.38 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.

89 7.39 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).

7.40 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.

7.41 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

7.42 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.

7.43 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

90 Environment Agency is responsible for flood and coastal erosion risk management.

7.44 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.

7.45 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

7.46 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).

7.47 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.

91 Heritage

7.48 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.

7.49 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

7.50 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

92 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.

7.51 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

7.52 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.

7.53 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.

93 Site Contamination

7.54 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 already been carried out which included exploratory boreholes and identified below ground contaminants consistent with typical inert and commercial waste. Gas and water contamination was also tested on the site. The findings indicate that there may be potential site contamination and remedial works required and further ground investigation is recommended. This will be secured by condition should planning permission be granted which represents the Council’s usual approach to dealing with potentially contaminated sites..

Impact on Neighbouring Land Uses

7.55 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.

7.56 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.

7.57 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.

7.58 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

94 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.

7.59 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.

7.60 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.

Phasing

7.61 Members were concerned at the September meeting with regards the phasing of the development and required there to be some clarification regarding the deliverability of the brownfield land and the phasing of ecology surveys. In terms of the phasing of the residential development, the applicant has stated that they would commence work on the southern part of the site (Charles Church development) first due to the additional ecological survey work required and season restriction on the northern part of the site around the BHS. The applicant has also suggested that no more than 50% of the dwellings on the southern Phase will be erected before the purchase of the northern Phase and that an area outside the BHS on the northern site could be submitted as a reserved matters application in conjunction with a reserved matters application on the southern parcel. This area could be used to provide the requisite affordable housing associated with the southern parcel.

7.62 I am concerned that this does not offer sufficient comfort to ensure that the northern phase (which will deliver the affordable housing and employment uses)

95 is built out in an expeditious manner. Therefore Condition 6 recommended below will ensure that no more than 50% of the open market residential development on the southern phase is commenced prior to the construction of the affordable housing and no more than 90% of the open market housing on the southern phase shall be occupied until the affordable development has been completed.

7.63 Recommended condition 31 also deals with the delivery of a marketing strategy for the employment area and requires that this be submitted to the Council prior to any works commencing on site and that the development be marketed in accordance with the approved strategy. The S106 Agreement will require that no more than 50% of the total number of dwellings on the southern part of site be constructed until the employment area has been marketed in accordance with the approved marketing scheme for a continuous period of 12 months.

7.64 With regards the ecology timetable, a detailed scoping and draft work programme has now been submitted which identifies when and what type of surveys will be undertaken from February 2015 onwards to inform the layout of future detailed planning applications. These include amphibian surveys, bat surveys and Great Crested Newt surveys.

Community Infrastructure Levy and Planning Obligations

7.65 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).

7.66 A planning obligation (S106 Agreement) would still be necessary in this instance to ensure the following:

Provision and maintenance of on-site open space;

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

Funding for the required education provision;

Phasing

All the above would be subject to a viability assessment.

Summary

7.67 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.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

(a) the provision of 35% affordable housing and 20% specialist housing for the elderly and (b) a commuted sum towards education funding and (c) the provision of on-site public open space within the development and a delivery mechanism and schedule for the on going maintenance of that public open space and (d) a phased delivery of the development. (e) a marketing strategy for the employment land

8.2 That any planning permission granted by the Assistant Director Planning pursuant to recommendation 7.1 above be subject to the following conditions:

97 namely the layout; scale and appearance of the building(s); and landscaping of the site. 3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with details shown on the following plans:- Plan reference HB.LP.01 (location plan) received by the Local Planning Authority on 20th August 2014. Plan reference SCP/13159/F02 Rev D (proposed northern site access arrangement) received by the Local Planning Authority on 8th July 2014; Plan reference SCP/13159/F03 Rev B(proposed southern access arrangement) received by the Local Planning Authority on 6th June 2014; 4. The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with detailed plans which previously shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such detailed plans shall show for each phase (with a phase equating to a Reserved Matters application) :- a. Proposed layout of roads and footpaths including a footpath link from the Lake to the south-eastern boundary of the site to a scale of not less than 1/500, including materials, gradients and sections; b. Proposed arrangements for the separate disposal of foul and surface water including any attenuation measures required; c. Proposed layout, siting, design, and external appearance of all buildings; the colour and type of materials to be used in the construction of external walls, roofs and hard surfaced areas including road surface and footpaths; d. Proposed means of access to buildings and parking for motor vehicles; e. Proposed walls, fences, and other means of enclosure; f. Location and species of all trees and hedges in the existing site and the proposed location and layout of all open spaces and amenity areas, including details of the layout and design of the linear park; g. Location, type and design of all external lighting. 5. Development shall not begin until a phasing programme for the whole of the site and for the highways works referred to, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The phasing plan shall identify residential and employment phases, provision of access and parking for existing site users and provision of the public open space. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing programme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 6. No more than 50% of the 'open market' residential development on the southern phase shall be commenced prior to the commencement of construction of the agreed level of 'affordable' housing. Subsequently, no more than 90% of the open market residential development on the southern phase shall be occupied until all the ‘affordable’ housing development has been completed. 7. No development within a phase (as set out in the phasing programme) shall take place until full details of the finished levels of all parts of the site, including the floor levels of all buildings, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 8. The estate road for each phase (as set out in the phasing programme) of the development shall be constructed in accordance with the Lancashire County

98 Council Specification for Construction of Estate Roads to at least base course level up to the entrance of the site compound before any development takes place within the site and shall be further extended before any development commences fronting the new estate road. 9. Car parking and vehicle turning areas within each phase (as set out in the phasing programme) shall be surfaced or paved in porous materials in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Local Planning Authority and the car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas marked out in accordance with the approved plan, before the use of the dwellings and other buildings/uses hereby permitted become operative. 10. A scheme for the construction of all site access and the off-site works of highway improvement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for each phase of development prior to commencement of construction of buildings in that phase. The site access and off-site highway works shall be completed in accordance with a timetable which shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before the development is occupied. The following schemes to be covered by this condition include: Station Road/Phase 1 access junction mini roundabout Station Road/Phase 2 access priority junction; scheme to include the removal of an existing bus stop and shelter Hesketh Lane/Church Road/Plox Brow junction improvement - mini roundabout. 11. Prior to the occupation of any building on that part of the site that is served off the northern mini-roundabout junction off Station Road, the pedestrian footway on the western site frontage between the proposed site access and the existing footway delivered as part of the Booths development must be fully constructed including any necessary retaining structures. 12. No construction works shall commence on each phase of development (as set out in the phasing programme) until a scheme for the construction of the internal access road, cycleway and footway networks for that phase of development has been first submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 13. No part of the development hereby approved that is served off the mini roundabout junction off Station Road shall be occupied until the roundabout has been constructed in accordance with the details approved under Condition 10. 14. For each phase of development no dwelling shall be occupied until a travel plan has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The travel plan shall be implemented in full. 15. There shall not at any time in connection with the development hereby permitted be planted hedges, trees or shrubs over 1m above the road level within any visibility splay required to maintain safe operation for all users. 16. No development shall commence on that part of the site served off the northern mini-roundabout junction off Station Road until a fully detailed Parking and Access Management Strategy and delivery timetable has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management of the car parking and cycle parking and access at the site shall be fully implemented in

99 accordance with the approved strategy and delivery timetable, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Parking Management and Access Strategy shall include an assessment and strategy to ensure adequate access and parking provision is delivered for all existing and proposed site uses for both car parking and cycle parking, including: Residential parking provision Employment site parking requirements other potential facilities such as cycle hire parking provision. parking provision for the Fishing Club the Light Railway enthusiasts and visitor attraction parking provision and provision for the Linear Park visitor attraction, walkers, dog walkers, cyclists (park and cycle) (Note: 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). 17. For each phase of development (as set out in the phasing programme) no development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; v) wheel washing facilities; vi) a management plan to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction identifying suitable mitigation measures; vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from construction work (there shall be no burning on site); viii) a Management Plan to identify potential ground and water contaminants; details for their storage and how water courses will be protected against spillage incidents and pollution during the course of construction; ix) a scheme to control noise during the construction phase, and x) the routing of construction vehicles and deliveries to site. 18. No development shall take place within a phase until a Method Statement detailing measures to be taken during construction within that phase to protect the health of the existing trees on and adjacent to the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures contained in the approved Method Statement shall be fully implemented during construction. 19. Tree felling, vegetation clearance works, demolition work or other works that may affect nesting birds shall not be undertaken between the months of March to August inclusive unless the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed by further surveys or inspections. Such surveys shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist. If nesting birds (or dependent young) are

100 found to be present, works shall be delayed until such time as nesting is complete and the young have fledged. 20. No building shall be occupied on each phase until a landscaping and detailed habitat creation/landscaping and management plan (to include compensatory planting for loss of trees and length of hedgerow; management details of replacement planting and retained areas of semi-natural vegetation) for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing 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 of each dwelling being occupied the respective landscaping details relating to that plot 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. The landscape management plan shall include details of management responsibilities, including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscaped areas (except privately owned domestic gardens). The agreed landscape and habitat creation shall be implemented in full, in accordance with timescales indicated in the approved scheme. 21. No development shall take place on a phase(as set out in the phasing programme) until a construction environment management plan (CEMP) for that phase of development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan shall be implemented in full. The plan shall provide for: Details of measures to mitigate impacts on biodiversity including a timetable of mitigation works relative to site investigation, site preparation and site clearance; Updated surveys to be carried out for features of biodiversity value to inform mitigation proposals; Survey for species in schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) shall also be undertaken and measures to prevent the spread of any such species shall be implemented if necessary; 22. No development shall take place on a phase (as set out in the phasing programme) until a detailed bat and barn owl protection; mitigation and enhancement scheme for that phase of development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented in full prior to occupation of any building on that phase of development. 23. No development shall take place on a phase (as set out in the phasing programme) until a detailed great crested newt protection; mitigation and enhancement scheme for that phase of development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented in full prior to occupation of any building on that phase of development.

101 24. No development on a phase (as set out in the phasing programme) shall be commenced until an amphibian survey has been carried to assess the impact of the development on the level of amphibian activity on the site. The survey shall also include measures for the protection, mitigation and enhancement of the species identified in the survey for that phase of development and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented in full prior to occupation of any building on that phase of development. 25. The development hereby approved 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 to be 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 26. For each phase no building works 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 also include details of remediation of contaminants prior to discharge into any watercourse and shall provide details of how the scheme will be maintained and managed after completion. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. 27. Notwithstanding any indication on the approved plans, no phase of development approved by this permission shall commence until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters for that phase 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 foul or combined sewerage systems. Any surface water draining to the public surface water sewer must be restricted to maximum pass forward flow that mimics existing greenfield run off rates. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. 28. No development on each phase (as set out in the phasing programme) shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risk associated with contamination of the site for that phase of development shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority: a) 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, including contamination from surface water into the estuary; b) A site investigation scheme, based on a) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off the site and in the Ribble Estuary;

102 c) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in b) 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; d) 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 c) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring or pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. 29. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 14 Class A; Part 15 Class A; Part 16 Class A; Part 17 Class G to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) no substations or other buildings shall be provided within the site without the prior approval in writing of the LPA of the detailed siting and external appearance of the substations. 30. No development on any phase (as set out in the phasing programme) shall take place until an Energy Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for that phase. The Statement shall detail the efficiency and sustainability measures that will be incorporated into the building design and construction. All dwellings shall, as a minimum, achieve the Code of Sustainable Homes Level 3 rising to Level 4 and Level 6 in line with the increases in Part L of the Building Regulations. No development on a phase shall be occupied until a letter of assurance detailing how the dwelling(s) have met the relevant Code Level has been issued by a DCLG approved certification body. Within 6 months of the occupation of the dwelling(s) a Final Certificate, certifying that the relevant Code for Sustainable Homes Level has been achieved shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. 31. Details of a marketing strategy for the employment area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to construction works commencing on any phase of development. Thereafter the employment site shall be marketed in accordance with the approved strategy unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 32. No development shall take place until the prior acquisition of the relevant licence/s from Natural England for the derogation of the protection of European Protected Species under the Habitats Directive.

103 5. To define the permission and in the interests of the proper development of the site in accordance with Policies EC3 and GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 6. In order to ensure the delivery of affordable housing on the site in accordance with Policy RS2 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 7. 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. 8. To ensure that satisfactory access is provided to the site before the development hereby permitted becomes operative in accordance with Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 9. To allow for the effective use of the parking areas in accordance with Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 10. In order to satisfy the Local Planning Authority and the Highway Authority that the final details of the highway scheme/works are acceptable before work commences on site and to ensure that satisfactory access is provided to the site before the development hereby permitted becomes operative in accordance with Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 11. In order to satisfy the Local Planning Authority and the Highway Authority that the complete footway connection can and will be delivered and to ensure that satisfactory pedestrian access is provided to the site before the development hereby permitted becomes operative in accordance with Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 12. In order to satisfy the Local Planning Authority and the Highway Authority that the final details of the highway scheme/works are acceptable before work commences on site. Also, in order to provide a safe access to the site and ensure that users of the development have appropriate access to sustainable transport options in accordance with Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 13. In order that the existing highway network is not undermined and that the scheme is delivered in advance of the completion of the development in accordance with Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 14. To ensure that the development provides sustainable transport options in accordance with Policy IF2 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012- 2027 Development Plan Document. 15. To ensure adequate visibility splays are maintained at all times and to ensure that the development complies with Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 16. To ensure that a satisfactory Parking Management Strategy is implemented for the development. This in turn will ensure adequate parking is provided for all uses so that the access to the site is not restricted, resulting in safety and capacity issues in order to satisfy the requirements of Policies EC2 and GN3 of

104 the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 17. To maintain the operation and safety of the local highway network during site preparation and construction and in the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012- 2027 Development Plan Document. 18. 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. 19. In the interests of nature conservation and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policies GN3 & EN2 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 20. To enable adequate maintenance and management of landscaped areas and so ensure the development complies with Policy GN3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 21. In the interests of protecting biodiversity and residential amenity so to ensure compliance with Policies GN3 and EN2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012- 2027 Development Plan Document. 22. To safeguard protected species and so ensure compliance with Policy EN2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 23. To safeguard protected species and so ensure compliance with Policy EN2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 24. In the interests of protecting biodiversity so to ensure compliance with Policy EN2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 25. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants in accordance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 26. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants in accordance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 27. 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. 28. To prevent pollution of controlled waters in accordance with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document. 29. To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider the appearance of substations or other such buildings given the high standard of public realm considerations for the overall layout of the site whereby non-sensitive infrastructure would undermine the achievement of quality public spaces and wider public realm and therefore to comply with Policy GN3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012- 2027 Development Plan Document. 30. In order to provide a sustainable and energy efficient development and to ensure the development therefore complies with the provisions of Policy EN1 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document.

105 31. To ensure that the employment land is marketed effectively to ensure delivery in accordance with Policy EC3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012 to 2027 Development Plan Document. 32. To safeguard protected species and so ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy EN2 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the Habitats Directive.

Notes 1. The grant of planning permission does not entitle a developer to obstruct a right of way and any proposed stopping-up or diversion of a right of way should be the subject of an Order under the appropriate Act. 2. The grant of planning permission will require the applicant to enter into an appropriate Legal Agreement with the County Council as Highway Authority. The Highway Authority hereby reserves the right to provide the highway works within the highway associated with this proposal. Provision of the highway works includes design, procurement of the work by contract and supervision of the works. The applicant should be advised to contact the Environment Director at County Hall, Preston PR1 0LD, in the first instance, to ascertain the details of such an agreement and the information to be provided. 3. Traffic Regulation Orders, diversions of Public Rights of Way, Stopping Up of existing highway, changes to public transport scheduling/routing and other activities require separate statutory consultation processes beyond the planning application process. The applicant will be obliged to meet all the costs associated with these of works and ensure that any works which rely upon them do not commence until all legal processes have been satisfactorily completed. 4. Natural England’s’ standing advice provides guidance on how protected species should be dealt with in the planning system. 5. The watercourse adjoining the site is designated as a main river and is therefore subject to Byelaws. In particular no trees or shrubs may be planted, fences, buildings, pipelines or any other structure erected within 8 metres of the top of the bank/retaining wall of the watercourse without prior consent of the Environment Agency. It is essential that this 8 metre strip is preserved for access purposes. 6. The Environment Agency has a right of entry to the River Douglas by virtue of Section 172 of the Water Resources Act 1991 and a right to carry out maintenance and improvement works by virtue of Section 165 of the same Act. 7. The landfill site is currently permitted. The CL:AIRE Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (version 2) provides operators with a framework for determining whether or not excavated material arising from site during remediation and/or land development works are waste or have ceased to be waste. Under the Code of Practice: excavated materials that are recovered via a treatment operation can be re- used on-site providing they are treated to a standard such that they are fit for purpose and unlikely to cause pollution. treated materials can be transferred between sites as part of a hub and cluster project. some naturally occurring clean material can be transferred directly between sites.

106 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. If in doubt, we should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.

We recommend that developers should refer to the Environment Agency Position statement on the Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice and the website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk for further guidance.

8. Public sewers cross this site and United Utilities will not permit building over them. United Utilities 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. To establish if a sewer diversion is feasible, the applicant must discuss this at an early stage with Developer Engineer, John Lunt, by email via [email protected] as a lengthy lead in period may be required if a sewer diversion proves to be acceptable.

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

9. Water pressures in the area are known to be generally low but above standard of service and United Utilities recommend that the applicant provides water storage of 24 hours capacity to guarantee an adequate and constant supply. 10. United Utilities water mains may need extending & substantially reinforcing/upsizing to serve any development on this site which will be confirmed by water network modelling. 11. 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. The applicant should contact United Utilities Service Enquiries on 0845 746 2200 regarding connection to the water mains/public sewers. 12. United Utilities offer a fully supported mapping service at a modest cost for our water mains and sewerage assets. This is a service, which is constantly updated by our Property Searches Team (Tel No: 0870 751 0101). It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any assets that may cross the site and any proposed development. United Utilities offer a number of services to support the planning & construction of a new development? Further information on water and wastewater developer services can be found at http://www.unitedutilities.com/builders-developers.aspx. 13. Please note, due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered during construction, please contact a Building Control Body to discuss the matter further.

107 14. 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. If planning permission is granted the applicant should verify such details by contacting Electricity North West, Estates and Wayleaves, Frederick Road, Salford, Manchester M6 6QH. The applicant should be advised that great care should be taken at all times to protect both the electrical apparatus and any personnel working in its vicinity. The applicant should also be referred to two relevant documents produced by the Health and Safety Executive, which are available from The Stationery Office Publications Centre and The Stationery Office Bookshops, and advised to follow the guidance given.

The documents are as follows:- HS(G)47 – Avoiding danger from underground services. GS6 – Avoidance of danger from overhead electric lines. ENW records show live and out of commission ENWL assets within the development site as follows :- Live ground mounted distribution substation. Live pole mounted distribution substation. Live 33kV mains cables. Live HV mains/service cables. Live LV mains/service cables. Out of commission HV and LV cables. 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. This includes carrying out works incidental to any of these purposes and this could require works at any time of day or night. Our Electricity Services Desk (Tel No. 0800 195 4141) will advise on any issues regarding diversions or modifications. Electricity North West offers a fully supported mapping service at a modest cost for our electricity assets. This is a service, which is constantly updated by our Data Management Team (Tel No. 0800 195 4749) and I recommend that the applicant give early consideration in project design as it is better value than traditional methods of data gathering. It is, however, the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship on site between any assets that may cross the site and any proposed development. 15. The grant of planning permission does not entitle a developer to obstruct a right of way and any proposed stopping up or diversion of a right of way should be the subject of an Order under the appropriate Act. Footpath/ Bridleway No.**** in the Parish of **** adjoins / is within the site. 16. This permission is subject to a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

108 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 – 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 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.

109 No.7 APPLICATION 2014/0452/FUL NO. LOCATION J Mallinson (Ormskirk) Ltd Former Lathom Vale Nurseries Vale Lane Lathom Ormskirk Lancashire L40 6JH PROPOSAL Extension to existing building and increase in site limits to allow an area of hardstanding for the manoeuvring of vehicles. APPLICANT J Mallinson (Ormskirk) Ltd WARD Bickerstaffe PARISH Lathom South TARGET DATE 1st August 2014

1.0 REFERRAL

1.1 This application was to be dealt with under the Council’s delegation scheme, however Councillor Westley has requested that it be referred to the Planning Committee to consider the impact of the proposed development on the neighbouring property and on the Green Belt.

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 2014/0015/FUL – WITHDRAWN (27.03.2014): Extension to existing building.

2.2 2012/0185/FUL - GRANTED (17.04.2012): Variation of Condition No. 4 imposed on planning permission 2008/1017/COU to read 'The use hereby permitted shall only take place between the hours of 07.00 and 19.00 Monday to Friday and 07.00 and 17.00 Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays. Outside these hours only access to and from the site shall be permitted with no maintenance, repairs, loading or unloading of vehicles taking place.

2.3 2011/1025/FUL – WITHDRAWN (18.12.2011): Removal of Condition No. 4 imposed on planning permission 2008/1017/COU relating to hours of operation. Variation of Condition No. 6 imposed on planning permission 2008/1017/COU to read: "No materials or equipment shall be stored outside the buildings except waste material which may be kept in bins for removal periodically and plant and equipment used in the landscaping contracting business".

2.4 2011/0633/FUL – REFUSED (28.07.2011): Creation of vehicle parking area.

2.5 2011/0632/FUL - REFUSED (26.07.2011): Removal of Condition No. 4 imposed on planning permission 2008/1017/COU relating to hours of operation. Variation of Condition No. 6 imposed on planning permission 2008/1017/COU to read: "No materials or equipment shall be stored outside the buildings except waste

110 material which may be kept in bins for removal periodically and plant and equipment used in the landscaping contracting business". APPEAL WITHDRAWN

2.6 2010/1198/FUL - APPROVED (06.12.2010): Retention of extension to existing building.

2.7 2008/1331/FUL - APPROVED(11.02.2009): Variation of condition 4 imposed on planning permission 2008/1017/COU to read: "The use hereby permitted shall only take place between the hours of 07.00 and 19.00 Monday to Friday and 07.00 and 17.00 Saturday. On Sundays and Bank Holidays only access to the site shall occur with no maintenance or repairs taking place. "Variation of condition 5 imposed on planning permission 2008/1017/COU to allow the submission of a scheme that specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise from the use on the site. These provisions can include physical and/or administrative measures. A report of compliance with the approved scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority every 3 years.

2.8 2008/1017/COU - APPROVED (27.11.2008): Change of use of existing buildings to landscape contractor’s depot.

2.9 2007/1173/COU -WITHDRAWN (29.08.2008): Change of use of existing buildings to Use Class B1.

2.10 2003/1149 – REFUSED (12.02.2004): Temporary siting of mobile home.

2.11 8/95/0007 - APPROVED (22.06.1995): Storage and packaging building and car park

2.12 8/94/0342 - APPROVED (23.05.1994): Re-cladding and alterations to roof profile of existing building

2.13 8/93/0932 - APPROVED (06.01.1994): Change of use to drying, dyeing, packaging and storage of dried flowers, re-cladding of existing buildings and alterations to vehicular access.

3.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER (02.06.14) – No objections

3.2 COUNTY SURVEYOR – (20.09.2014) – The proposed extended open frontage building is for the storage of the applicant’s existing equipment. Additionally condition 2 of planning application 2006/1017/COU restricts the use of the site for a landscaping contracting business only. On this basis there are no objections to the proposed extension as it is considered that it should have a negligible impact on highway safety and highway capacity in the immediate vicinity of the site.

111 3.3 COAL AUTHORITY (11.08.2014) - No objection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring further site investigation works to be carried out before any development takes place

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 LATHOM SOUTH PARISH COUNCIL (23/06/2014) – Summary of issues raised is as follows:-

The company has been allowed to weaken conditions relating to hours of operation and outside storage The paddock area to the rear is not being respected Growth brings extra movements and manoeuvring of heavy vehicles, extra storage needs, extra parking requirements and extra noise and activities Space on the site is now exhausted hence the need to extend the area enclosed by the red edge The application is vague in terms of past, current and projected future growth in terms of operational development There is no guarantee the very special circumstances would be the end of the growth of this site Very special circumstances should be limited to cases of very special situations and not just growth

4.2 SOUTH LATHOM RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (19.06.2014) – Summary of issues raised is as follows:-

The history of the site has led to the steady erosion of the its status The company has previously sought to remove or vary conditions regarding hours of operation and outside storage. The latter is routinely ignored by the company and this has been reported to the Council A fire occurred at the site in October 2013 and it was agreed that all investigations into the company’s activities by the Council’s enforcement team would be suspended The proposal will weaken the Green Belt protection afforded to this site The proposed extension equates to the floor area of three homes The loss of open space means that access to the proposed extension requires intrusion into the neighbouring undeveloped area The proposed very special circumstances (i.e. relocation to Leyland) is not special enough to over-ride Green Belt policy Re-location to Leyland is not the only option to the company, local business parks, such as Pimbo, should be considered The reason for the proposal, continued growth of business, has not been quantified The growth is substantial and will mean an increase in staff number with car parking implications and vehicle movements Additional disturbances affecting residents of Vale Lane Road safety implications for Vale Lane

112 Business growth, as a reason for over-riding Green Belt protection, would set a precedent The site has already been extensively developed Would permission have been originally granted if the Council knew the scale of growth? The situation at this site has reached its limit and the Council should not feel under pressure to accept this proposal just because of comments about having to relocate to Leyland

5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

5.1 A supporting statement has been submitted

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 allocated as Green Belt as designated in the WLLP.

NPPF

Supporting a prosperous rural economy Protecting Green Belt land

West Lancashire Local Plan Policies

GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development EC2 – The Rural Economy EN2 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Natural Environment

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

Site Description

7.1 This application relates to an existing group of buildings and hardstanding located approximately 450m to the north of Vale Lane. It is accessed via a single width track, which also serves agricultural land either side of the site and one residential property (Spa Roughs). The site is surrounded by open farmland and wooded areas. The site operates as a landscaping contracting business.

Proposal

7.2 This proposal is an application for the extension to an existing building which is located to the north of the wider site. The building to be extended was recently

113 damaged by a fire and has now been re-constructed to its pre-fire condition. The proposed extension would be located to the north side of the building and would measure 40m x 10m. The proposal would be single storey in height and have a low sloping roof with a maximum height of 4.1m (eaves height - 3.24m). The materials proposed are a profile metal cladding to match the existing. The extension would be used in the same capacity as the existing building, storage of machinery and equipment. The northern elevation of the proposed extension would be open fronted. The proposal also involves the creation of a hardstanding area measuring 55m x 10m to the immediate north of the extension to facilitate the movement of vehicles to and from the extension.

Assessment

Principle of Development – Green Belt

7.3 Paragraph 79 of the NPPF confirms that great importance is to be attached to Green Belts and that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF confirms that inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances and that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

7.4 Paragraph 89 of the NPPF indicates that the construction of new building in the Green Belt is inappropriate other than for a number of identified exceptions. One of these exceptions allows for the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy GN1 in the WLLP states that development proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed against national policy and any relevant Local Plan policies.

7.5 The proposed extension represents a 50% increase in the floor area of the existing building and a volume increase of approximately 26%. The NPPF does not provide definitive guidance on what constitutes a disproportionate addition to an existing building. However the Council has supplementary planning guidance on domestic extensions in the green belt which confirms that once extensions exceeds 66% of the floor area or 50% of the volume of an existing building then it is more likely to be considered to be a disproportionate addition and to have an adverse impact on openness. This advice relates to domestic extensions but when applying the same approach to the current case, the proposed extension is found to be significantly less than that generally allowed under the adopted guidance. On this basis and due to the size of the proposed extension in relation to that of the existing building, I am satisfied that the proposal does not represent a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.

114 Therefore, on balance, the proposed development is considered to be an appropriate form of development, compliant with the NPPF and Policy GN1 in the WLLP.

Impact on Green Belt and character of surrounding area

7.6 The proposed extension and associated hardstanding area would result in an outward expansion into land which was previously undeveloped. While the Council is aware that this land has been recently used to store equipment following a fire which destroyed the building to be extended (now re-built), this was given to be a temporary measure to manage the circumstances at that time. Nevertheless, the proposed extension, when considered in the context of the wider side is considered to represent a form of encroachment which does not significantly harm the openness of the Green Belt. In addition the proposed development is considered to safeguard the countryside from general encroachment and does not conflict with any of the other purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

7.7 The siting of the proposed extension along the northern boundary of the site limits the visual impact of the proposed development on the surrounding rural area and the proposed extension would be seen in the context of the existing wider site which contains a number of buildings and areas of hardstanding. In addition, the proposed extension would not result in the introduction or significant change in existing working practices within the site and I am satisfied that the vehicular movements in and around the proposed extension would not be noticeably different than those currently attributed to the use of the site. On balance therefore, I am satisfied that the siting of the proposed development, the proposed use of the building and the general context of the wider site would limit the visual harm of the proposed development.

Principle of Development – Rural Economy

7.8 The NPPF at paragraph 28 advises that planning policies should be in place to support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. In addition it advises that in order to promote a strong rural economy a local plan should [inter alia] support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings. Policy EC2 in the WLLP confirms that employment opportunities in rural areas of the Borough are limited, and therefore the Council will protect the continued employment use of existing employment sites.

7.9 The proposed development would be used for the storage of machinery and equipment used in the applicant’s landscape contracting business. Given the nature of the business, it is understood that the applicant is reliant on the ready availability of different types of machinery which, for maintenance and security purposes, requires internal storage when not in use. The applicant has confirmed

115 that he employs a total of 39 people (including approximately 9 causal labourers) although the majority of these are not based at the application site but visit the site infrequently as they are based at on-going construction sites. I accept that the current business makes a positive contribution to the local rural economy and the proposed development is required to maintain its viability and support its continued growth. Given that economic growth in rural areas should be supported and existing employment opportunities protected, I am satisfied that the proposed development complies with both national and local policies in this respect.

Design/Appearance

7.10 The proposed extension would appear subordinate to the main building and follow the general design and appearance of this building. Similar materials would be used in its construction. The proposal would extend from the north elevation and would be largely hidden from surrounding viewpoints. I accept that the design and appearance of the proposed development is acceptable and compliant with Policy GN3 in the WLLP.

Highways

7.11 The applicant has confirmed that the proposed development is to create appropriate storage facilities and provide suitable access to those facilities to allow the effective use of the space which would be provided. The existing operations would continue unchanged in that the application site would remain a base for the business. Staff and machinery would be sent out to jobs around the country when needed and remain there until the particular job is finished. In addition the applicant has stated that it is the recent fire which highlighted the need for additional storage room as the building was accommodating a large number of vehicles and pieces of equipment. The objective of the proposal is therefore to provide suitable storage facilities and not to introduce additional activities or additional staff members. Whilst it is accepted that it is the main objective of any business to grow and that growth can result in additional staff, vehicular movements etc, I am satisfied with the case put forward by the applicant in that given the manner in which the business operates, the proposed extension would not directly lead to any increase in vehicular movements to and from the site, any additional highway safety issues along the access way or at the junction of the access way and Vale Lane and or an increase in noise and disturbance to local residents.

7.12 The proposed development includes the provision of an area of hardstanding to the front of the proposed extension. This is to allow the movement of vehicles to and from the proposed extension. It was considered by the applicant, that a separate access point from the main building would allow the most effective use of the space. This area is not proposed for additional parking, the proposal would not, in the case provided by the applicant, lead to an increase in staff levels and therefore it is not considered that additional parking is required. I accept that the proposed hardstanding would allow the effective manoeuvring of vehicles and is

116 appropriate from an operational point of view to maximize the use of the storage space.

Neighbouring amenity

7.13 There is one neighbouring property along Vale Lane which is located to the south of the wider site. The proposed development, being to the north of the site, would be screened from this neighbouring property by existing buildings. The associated vehicular movements and ancillary activities would again be largely screened from this neighbouring property. The objective of the proposal is to provide suitable storage facilities and therefore I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in an increase in noise and disturbance to the detriment of this neighbouring property.

7.14 I am aware of the concerns raised by local groups in respect of the cumulative impact of the piecemeal developments on the site over the last number of years and the potential need for further development in the future if the business continues to grow. Whilst I accept that these are valid concerns, the Council must consider each planning application on its own merits and each application must be considered in light of the existing site constraints and under local and national policy applicable at the time of consideration. Whilst I understand local concerns regarding future growth, future applications would be considered in the above manner.

Ecology/Biodiversity

7.15 The proposed development would not lead to the loss of any existing trees hedges and whilst it would encroach into open land, there is no evidence that this supports any protected/priority species. I am satisfied that the proposal is in accordance with Policy EN2 of the WLLP.

Other matters

7.16 The application site lies adjacent to land to the very rear of the site but which is not included within the application. There is no physical barrier between the existing commercial site and this land. The applicant has confirmed that some form of appropriate boundary treatment would be erected to ensure that this part of the land would remain outside of the commercial site and details of this will be required by condition.

Summary

7.17 The proposed development is considered to represent a form of development which is appropriate within the Green Belt and would not result in any significant harm to its openness or the visual amenity of the surrounding area. In this respect the proposed development is considered to be compliant with the NPPF and Policy GN1 in the WLLP. On other matters, I have identified no significant

117 issues in respect highway matters, neighbouring amenity, landscaping or ecology.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Drawing no. E657/13 sheet 1 of 2 and 2 of 2, 1295/LOC/1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 1st May 2014

3. The building hereby approved shall not be brought into use until details of proposed boundary fence to enclose the hardstanding and separate the application site from the rear paddock has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved fence shall be erected as an integral part of the development and completed before the development hereby approved first comes into use. 4. The maintenance, repair, loading or unloading of vehicles or equipment associated with the use of the site for a landscape contracting business shall only take place between the hours of 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday and 7:00 to 17:00 Saturdays. Outside these hours only access to the site shall be permitted. 5. The rating level of noise from all activities on site shall not exceed the background noise level by more than 3dB(A) at any time, as measured or calculated on the boundary of any nearby noise sensitive premises. The measurements shall be made according to BS 4142:1997 Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas using physical and/or administrative measures. A report of compliance with the approved scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority every three years. 6. No materials or equipment shall be stored on the site outside the buildings except waste materials which may be kept in bins for removal periodically. 7. No repairs to vehicles shall be carried out on the site other than inside the buildings. 8. 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. 9. The premises shall be used for the landscaping contracting business and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class B1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision

118 equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order).

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. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. In order to avoid conflict with the Local Planning Authority's policy of strict control of development in the Green Belt and to ensure compliance with Policy GN1 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. In order to avoid conflict with the Local Planning Authority's policy of strict control of development in the Green Belt and to ensure compliance with Policy GN1 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development EC2 – The Rural Economy EN2 – Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Natural Environment

119 2027 DPD and the National Planning Policy Framework it feels that special circumstances exist, namely the continued contribution of the business to the rural economy. It is considered that these special circumstances justify approval of the application 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.8 APPLICATION 2014/0763/WL3 NO. LOCATION Land Adjacent To 49-55 Church Road And 6 & 25 And 9- 11 Stockley Crescent Bickerstaffe Lancashire

PROPOSAL Change of use from grassed open space to car parking. Laying of kerbs, stone base, tarmacadam road surfaces and footpaths. APPLICANT West Lancashire Borough Council WARD Bickerstaffe PARISH Bickerstaffe TARGET DATE 7th October 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2014/0193/WL3 WITHDRAWN 18.02.2014 Change of use from grassed open space to car parking. Laying of kerbs, stone base, tarmacadam road surfaces and footpaths as on plans.

2.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

2.1 Lancashire County Council (highways) (28.08.2014) - The layout of the proposed spaces would lead to substantial dropping of kerbs and cause vehicles to be reversed on the highway. This would not be in the best interest of highway safety, although I would not wish to object to the proposal based on these issues alone. I however wish to strongly object to the two parking spaces proposed outside nos. 9 and 11 Stockley Crescent, due to their impact on the existing footway and visibility for drivers of vehicles emerging from the access between no. 1 and 9 Stockley Crescent. Vehicles parked in these bays would obstruct the footway and obscure visibility for vehicles coming out of the access to the detriment of highway safety. The two spaces should therefore be dropped for the proposal for the scheme to meet Highways acceptability. I also have concern regarding the two proposed parking spaces outside nos. 4 and 6 Stockley Crescent. As I have not seen the original scaled plan of the proposal, I have been unable to ascertain the actual length of these spaces. However, from a copy of the plan quoted above, it can be seen that the two parking spaces are only barely within the allocated area. In order that parked vehicles do not straddle the footway when the spaces are in place, it should be ensured that these spaces are of the standard

120 lengths of 4.8m and fully contained within the area without projecting onto the footway.

As indicated above, there are no highway objections to the proposal, except, the two spaces outside nos. 9 and 11 Stockley Crescent, which I would insist should be dropped from the proposal for highway safety reasons.

2.2 WLBC Housing & Regeneration (15.08.2014) - fully supports this scheme

2.3 United Utilities (28.08.2014) – No objections subject to the integrity of public sewer crossing the site not being compromised.

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

None

4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

None

5.0 LOCAL PLAN ALLOCATION

5.1 The site is designated as within the Green Belt; a minerals safeguarding area and an area of Landscape Importance of Local Importance in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

5.2 National Planning Policy Framework Protecting Green Belt land Promoting sustainable transport Requiring good design

5.3 West Lancashire Local Plan (2012-2027) DPD GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development EN3 – Provision of Green Infrastructure and Open Recreation Space IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choice

5.4 Supplementary Planning Document, Design Guide (Jan 2008)

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

6.1 The application relates to an isolated crescent road estate of 29 houses and community centre to the eastern side of Church Road within the Green Belt. The modern estate is primarily bungalow accommodation but with some two-storey dwellings and a mix of Council and privately owned housing. Dwellings front onto the Stockley Crescent and Church Road frontages with common areas of

121 greenspace between private gardens areas, adjacent to corner plots, the Church Road frontage and some verge strips. In addition, the community centre is set back in its plot and benefits from a large area of grass and planting bed to its frontage.

The Proposal

6.2 This application seeks planning permission to form a total of 20 off-road parking spaces in five locations about the estate comprising:

5 end-on spaces to the grass area adjacent to the southern gable end of 55 Church Road with pathway;

6 end-on spaces to the grass area adjacent to the northern gable of 49 Church Road with pathway;

4 end-on spaces to the grass area to the front of the community centre with pathway;

2 parallel spaces on the grass verge to the front of nos. 9 and 11 Stockley Crescent; and,

2 diagonal spaces to the grassed area to the east of the rear garden of 6 Stockley Crescent.

Assessment

Green Belt & Highway Safety

6.3 Policy GN1(b) of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document states development proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed against national policy and any relevant local plan policies. The formation of the parking spaces constitutes development as an engineering operation. Engineering operations in the Green Belt are not inappropriate development provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. The formation of the hard standings will adversely impact on the openness of the Green Belt simply by their presence, however, they will not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt due to their presence in an estate setting.

6.4 Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 88 of the NPPF advises that when considering any planning application substantial weight be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

122 6.5 In addition to the harm arising to the Green Belt by virtue of its inappropriateness the harm to the openness of the Green Belt is limited as the development lies flush with the existing surface level within an area of the wider estate development i.e. the land is previously developed ‘brownfield’ land and not virgin or agricultural land with any overriding rural character. The case of very special circumstances is discussed in the following paragraphs.

6.6 Existing parking on the estate is severely limited with properties predominantly being limited to one space or no parking facilities. In the north-eastern corner of the estate a parking area containing 4 sectional garages exists – presumably from the original design of the estate, however, this suffers from poor incidental surveillance, is distant from most dwellings and appears vulnerable in terms of security; it is therefore poorly used. As a consequence there are significant levels of on-street parking including half-on, half-off verge parking and regular and extensive use of the informal green landscape areas throughout the day. Whilst ensuring traffic speeds remain low on the Crescent these sporadic arrangements inhibit the free-flow of traffic and can obscure visibility from existing driveways and inter-visibility between vehicles and pedestrians. I consider there is a clear need and justification to provide additional formalised parking in the locality from highway safety and local amenity points of view

6.7 Policy IF2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan provides detailed criteria relating to transport choices in development. It states that proposals for additional parking provision should consider local circumstances to justify a proposal, which include levels of local parking provision and any local parking congestion issues.

6.8 The proposed parking areas have been assessed by the local highway authority. Some concerns are raised in respect of the subsequent extent of dropped kerbs, the requirement for vehicles to reverse onto the estate road (not Church Road) and the actual size of the diagonal spaces adjacent to 6 Stockley Crescent. Additionally, an objection is raised over the loss of continuous pavement resulting from the parallel spaces to the front of 9 and 11 Stockley Crescent and the visibility for cars emerging from the original parking court.

6.9 Whilst the extent of dropped kerbs and requirements for reversing are not considered sufficient to warrant refusal these matters must be assessed in the context of the current problems in the locality and, on balance, I do not consider there are likely to be any exacerbated concerns over highway safety due to the location and layout of the estate and likely traffic speeds on Stockley Crescent. In terms of the diagonal spaces – these show sufficient length (5.0 metres) to avoid vehicles overhanging the highway.

6.10 In respect of the two spaces to the front of 9 & 11 Stockley Crescent, having reviewed the proposed location these spaces fall within the existing grass verge and do not encroach onto the existing footway in this locality which is to remain therefore there will be no conflict with existing pedestrian provision here. Additionally, visibility will be no more impeded for vehicles emerging from the

123 original parking court than in comparison to the existing situation due to the level of on-street parking currently experienced. Indeed, the effective widening of the useable carriageway by positioning cars off the main carriageway will result in a benefit as cars won’t have to blindly emerge into the roadway to achieve visibility to the left or swing out past informally parked cars. On that basis I consider that part of the proposal acceptable in highway safety and layout terms for both vehicle users and pedestrians.

6.11 In the context of this estate I consider the proposed development would give rise to significant benefits that would outweigh the total harm to the Green Belt and therefore is acceptable in both Green Belt and highway respects.

Loss of Greenspaces

6.12 Whilst the proposal would remove parts of the grassed areas which contribute to the overall quality of the appearance of the estate I note that due to the significant parking pressures here several of these areas are already informally used for parking which, during wet weather, will result in the areas being cut-up and detract from the visual amenity of the area. The formalisation of the parking on the estate should reduce the necessity to park on the remaining green spaces to better preserve the numerous such areas that would remain. On balance, I consider the remaining areas will be sufficient to retain the overall characteristic of the estate development.

Local Amenity

6.13 The locations of the proposed parking areas are such that I am satisfied that they will not result in any significant adverse impact on the neighbouring land uses despite the concentration of parking in these areas.

Summary

6.14 Overall I consider that the benefits of creating the formalised parking areas outweigh the impact of development on the Green Belt and the loss of a small areas of open space and therefore comply with Policies GN1, GN3, EN3 and IF2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

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

124 Plan reference DG-49-10 received by the Local Planning Authority on 14 July 2014. 3. The parking spaces hereby approved shall be of permeable construction and materials.

3. To ensure that the development minimises the potential of flash flooding in the interest of local amenity and that the development, therefore, complies with the provisions of Policy GN3 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document.

Notes 1. Any further information regarding United utilities Developer Services and Planning please visit our website at http://www.unitedutilities.com/builders- developers.aspx

It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities' assets and the proposed development. United Utilities offer a fully supported mapping service and we recommend the applicant contact our Property Searches Team on 0870 751 0101 to obtain maps of the site.

Due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered during construction; please contact a Building Control Body to discuss the matter further. 2. This consent requires the construction, improvement or alteration of an access to the public highway. Under the Highways Act 1980 Section 184 the County Council as Highway Authority must specify the works to be carried out. Only the Highway Authority or a contractor approved by the Highway Authority can carry out these works and therefore before any access works can start you must contact the Environment Directorate for further information by emailing the County Council's Developer Support Service on [email protected] by writing to the Developer Support Manager, Cuerden Mill Depot, Cuerden Way, Bamber Bridge, Preston PR5 6BJ quoting the planning application number in either case.

125 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:

GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development EN3 – Provision of Green Infrastructure and Open Recreation Space IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choice

126 No.9 APPLICATION 2014/0709/WL3 NO. LOCATION Land At Firbeck Birch Green Skelmersdale Lancashire

PROPOSAL Outline application for 100% affordable residential development (all matters reserved). APPLICANT West Lancashire Borough Council WARD Birch Green PARISH Unparished - Skelmersdale TARGET DATE 2nd October 2014

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 2014/0616/WL3 – Land Adjacent to 14-92 (evens) and 41-69 (odds) Firbeck Birch Green. Change of use of land to provide extended curtilages, gated rear accesses and bin collection areas. Approved 24.07.14

2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

2.1 West Lancashire Borough Council Estates and Regeneration - fully support this application to develop land for housing.

2.2 LCC Flood Risk Management Team – No objection to the proposed development but it is recommended that the proposed outline application incorporates sustainable drainage systems into the drainage design from the earliest stage and conforms to appropriate standards.

2.3 LCC Education Team – there is no requirement for a planning contribution.

2.4 Environmental Strategy Team – The developer is required to submit an energy statement detailing the energy efficiency and sustainability measures that would be incorporated into the building design, construction and operation. This should include details of the dwellings energy performance and the proposed percentage improvement on Building Regulations, in terms of both energy demand and CO2 emissions. Details of the measures being incorporated to achieve this should also be included.

2.5 Lancashire Constabulary – In order to reduce the risk of crime and anti-social behaviour affecting residents, visitors and the local community, the development should be designed in accordance with the principles of Secured By Design.

2.6 Environmental Health – No objections

127 2.7 County Surveyor – The development site has previously been used for housing and as such it is not anticipated that there would be any significant impact arising from the proposed development on the local road network. The development site is relatively well served by local bus services, both on Birch Green Road and at the Concourse/bus station which is a reasonable walk away using established pedestrian facilities. There are a number of off-road long-distance cycle routes locally, which might be of value to new residents in commuting for work and/or education purposes. This potential would be unlocked if the path to the south of the proposed housing could be improved to 3m minimum width, allowing it to serve as a shared cycleway/footpath. For this purpose, it could be moved some distance further south (subject to physical site constraints) to enable the greatest flexibility for housing design/layout options. Given the scale and nature of the development proposed, and the former use of the site for housing, it is not anticipated that a targeted contribution towards sustainable transport will be requested. The speed limits on existing roads within the Firbeck estate are 20mph. Any new or reconfigured roads/junctions need to be designed to reflect these lower speeds, ‘Manual for Streets’ is the appropriate reference document. Off street parking provision for the proposed development must conform to the WLLP, in order to minimise risks of obstruction within the new residential area. This should ideally be by way of allocated spaces within private curtilage for individual houses, and by shared parking courts for apartments/multiple occupancy accommodation. Adequate off-street provision should also be made for visitor parking.

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 One objection has been received to the proposal on the grounds that the building of houses on the footprint of the buildings that have recently been demolished will impact on amenity. The previous dwellings that were on the site created overlooking issues and since they have been demolished the property benefits from greater privacy and increased light.

3.2 The Ecumenical Centre, Northway raises concerns that the plan as shown on the drawings continues flush to the south east boundary of the Centre, and as such restricts a public pathway. If the pathway were to be blocked this would restrict access to the Centre through the gateway on the eastern boundary.

4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

4.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report Supporting Statement incorporating Design and Access Statement Daytime Inspection and Dusk/Dawn Surveys in Relation to Bats

128 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.

5.2 The site is located within the Skelmersdale Town Centre Strategic Development Site as designated in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD.

5.3 West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD (WLLP)

SP1 A Sustainable Development Framework for West Lancashire SP2 Skelmersdale Town Centre GN1 Settlement Boundaries RS1 Residential Development GN3 Criteria for Sustainable Development IF2 Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choice IF3 Service Accessibility and Infrastructure for Growth IF4 Developer Contributions EN2 Preserving and Enhancing West Lancashire’s Natural Environment

5.4 Supplementary Planning Advice

The Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework SPD Design Guide (January 2008) SPD Open Space/Recreational Provision in New Residential Developments (April 2009) SPD Skelmersdale Town Centre Planning Obligations in Lancashire

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

The Site

6.1 The Firbeck estate is located to the north east of Skelmersdale Town Centre, north of Northway, and west of Houghton’s Lane. The estate comprises a number of interlinked blocks of flats, houses and garages. Development in the area is predominantly two storey.

6.2 To the south of the site is Elmer’s Clough which contains numerous mature trees and is classed as a County Biological Heritage Site.

6.3 The application comprises three plots of vacant land, one larger and two smaller plots. The three sites formerly housed the Findon and Firbeck flats (60 units in total) which have recently been demolished.

129 The Proposal

6.4 This application seeks outline planning permission for a 100% affordable residential development on the three vacant sites within the Firbeck Estate. This application forms part of the wider Firbeck regeneration and Skelmersdale Strategic Development Site proposals, which aims to improve residential properties and regenerate the estate, as well as redevelop Skelmersdale Town Centre. All matters have been reserved for future consideration.

Principle of Development

6.5 The application is located within the Regional Town of Skelmersdale as defined by Policy SP1 and Policy RS1 of the WLLP, it is also within a Strategic Development Site as defined by Policy SP2.

6.6 Policy RS1 confirms that residential development will be permitted within the Borough’s settlements, on brownfield sites and on greenfield sites not protected by other policies. Policy SP2 is specific to Skelmersdale Town Centre and suggests that the Firbeck Estate should be improved through the redevelopment or remodelling of the existing housing stock and the provision of new housing and landscaped areas where appropriate, linking to a high quality housing scheme on the adjacent Findon Estate.

6.7 There is policy support for the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes and as such it is considered that the principle of residential development is acceptable on the sites subject to compliance with other relevant policies.

Impact on Residential Amenity

6.8 The development sites are located within close proximity to existing residential dwellings, and as such when considering the design/layout of the proposed dwellings it would be necessary to consider potential impact on existing residents. As the application is in outline form with all matters reserved, potential impact on neighbouring occupiers through overlooking, overshadowing or creation of poor outlook will be an issue that is fully considered at reserved matters stage.

6.9 Concern has been raised by the Ecumenical Centre about the restriction of access to the building. Whilst the application site boundary is adjacent to the boundary of the Ecumenical Centre, the exact position of buildings has not yet been determined, and will be considered at reserved matters stage.

130 Drainage / Flood Risk

6.10 The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and as the site is less that 1ha in size it is outside of the threshold requirements for a Flood Risk Assessment. It has been recommended that the development incorporates sustainable drainage systems into the drainage design, and should planning permission be granted drainage details would be subject to a relevant planning condition.

Highways

6.11 There is no objection to the proposed development provided that access issues, including cycle routes, road layout and off-street parking provision are addressed as part of any reserved matters application.

Impact on Ecology

6.12 The ecological information submitted in support of the application relating to bats identified that there were no apparent reasons why demolition work should not take place. The majority of the former dwellings have already been demolished leaving the site largely clear for future redevelopment.

6.13 The application was accompanied by a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and a daytime inspection and dawn to dusk surveys in relation to bats. The site lies adjacent to Elmer’s Clough a Biological Heritage Site containing woodland which is ancient and semi natural in character. The distance from the development site boundary to the BHS means that it is unlikely to be impacted as a result of any future development proposals. It is recommended that new scrub planting is provided to give habitat corridors through the site. This is something that can be dealt with at the reserved matters stage.

CIL/Planning Obligations

6.14 Since the site is located within Skelmersdale, the development is not CIL liable. However a planning obligation will be required to ensure the residential units will remain affordable in perpetuity. 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, but the units must be designed specifically for the elderly to live in without adaptation.

Summary

6.15 This outline application for affordable residential development within the Skelmersdale Strategic Development Site is considered acceptable in principle in accordance with all relevant policies of the WLLP.

131 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to the Assistant Director Planning in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to the applicant entering into a planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure, subject to viability, the terms and conditions of the affordable housing and; 20% specialist housing for the elderly.

7.2 That any planning permission granted by the Assistant Director Planning pursuant to recommendation 7.1 above be subject to the following conditions:

Conditions 1. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. 2. Before any part of the development hereby approved is commenced approval shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority for the reserved matters namely the layout; scale and appearance of the building(s); means of access; and landscaping (including landscape maintenance) of the site. 3. 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 3rd July 2014. Plan reference Site Plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 3rd July 2014.

4. No construction 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. 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. For the full period of construction, facilities shall be available on site for the cleaning of wheels of vehicles leaving the site and such equipment shall be used as necessary to prevent mud and stones being carried onto the highway. The roads adjacent to the site shall be mechanically swept as required during the full construction period. 7. No development shall take place until full details of the finished levels of all parts of the site, including the floor levels of all buildings, have been submitted to and

132 approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with those details.

133 No.10 APPLICATION 2014/0739/FUL NO. LOCATION 63 Swanpool Lane Aughton Ormskirk Lancashire L39 5AY

PROPOSAL Retention of two storey extension to side and rear. APPLICANT Mr And Mrs D Campbell WARD Aughton Park PARISH Aughton TARGET DATE 9th September 2014

1.0 REFERRAL

1.1 This application was to be determined under the Councils delegation scheme, however, Councillor Jones requested that it be referred to the Committee to consider the impact of the development upon the street scene and residential amenity.

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 2014/0106/FUL – Two storey extension to side and rear. GRANTED 10.04.2014

3.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

3.1 NONE

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 AUGHTON PARISH COUNCIL (18/08/2014) – Members noted the retrospective planning application for part of the building work and considered an organised site visit desirable to allow Planning Committee members to view the size and scale of this corner plot development, taking into account the ‘street scene’ and ‘residential amenity’.

5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

5.1 NONE

6.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

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

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

134 Supplementary Planning Document – Design Guide (January 2008)

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

Site

7.1 The site relates to a detached residential dwelling located on the eastern side of Swanpool Lane, Aughton. It is located on a substantial corner plot (meeting with Ryder Crescent) with front and rear garden areas. The site is within an established settlement area of Aughton.

Proposal

7.2 This planning application seeks to retain works to amend a previously approved planning application for a two storey extension to side and rear (application reference 2014/0106/FUL). The main amendments to this scheme from that of approved application 2014/0106/FUL include: Internal re-arrangement Removal / re-location and revision of window configuration Chimney to south elevation Increase in scale and size of the property (increase in approx. 0.6m width and 0.3m in length

Design and External appearance

7.3 Policy GN3 of the adopted WLLP states that proposals for development should be of a high quality design and in keeping with the West Lancashire Design Guide SPD.

7.4 The Council’s SPD Design Guide states that new development should be of a scale, mass and built form, which responds to the characteristics of the site and its surroundings. Care should be taken to ensure that buildings do not disrupt the visual amenities of the streetscene because of their height, scale or roofline.

7.5 I consider that the amendments to the scheme are acceptable and the extension as built is still in proportion, character and scale with the property and surrounding area. I do not consider that the additional width of the extension or the alteration to the window configuration or design would have a detrimental appearance on the street scene. The development (as per the previous application) will include the rendering of the property which is currently faced with exposed red brick. As Swanpool Lane contains a mix of housing styles with different finishes, the proposed changes will not be out of character within the area. Whilst the side extension projects in front of the Ryder Crescent building line I am satisfied that it does not over dominate the streetscene. I therefore

135 consider the design of the extension to accord with Policy GN3 in the Local Plan and advice in the Council’s SPD Design Guide.

Impact upon neighbouring properties

7.6 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan states that development should “retain or create reasonable levels of privacy, amenity and sufficient garden / outdoor spaces for occupiers of the neighbouring and proposed properties”.

7.7 It is not considered that the proposed amendments to the scheme including the additional width and depth of the extension would result in any substantial loss of privacy or amenity to the neighbouring properties at no. 61, no. 65 Swanpool Lane or no.1 Ryder Crescent - owing to the separation distance between these dwellings and the development. A separation distance of approx. 28m remains with no. 1 Ryder Crescent which is sufficient to prevent any overlooking. Over 8m separates no.63 from no. 65 Swanpool Lane and a blank elevation is provided to the side. In relation to no. 61 Swanpool Lane the two storey extension is set approx. 1.8m in from the party boundary and has a depth of approx. 4.9m. Taking into consideration the position of the neighbouring property which itself has a rear ground floor extension I consider the development would not have a significant impact on the amenities of the adjoining property.

7.8 I note that on the previously approved planning application that a condition was added to ensure that first floor northern side window is obscurely glazed. This window has now been removed from the scheme so this condition will not be carried forward on the new permission.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Given the above I consider that the development satisfactorily meets the requirements of Policies GN1 and GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012- 2027 DPD and should be recommended for approval.

Conditions 1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with details shown on the following plans:- Plan reference A/423/01B received by the Local Planning Authority on 15/07/2014.

Reasons 1. 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.

136 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 Policies in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document:

GN1 – Settlement Boundaries 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.

137 No.11 APPLICATION 2014/0570/FUL NO. LOCATION Bellagios 20 Springfield Road Aughton Ormskirk Lancashire L39 6ST

PROPOSAL Demolition of existing building and the erection of a new build Prestige Car Sales Facility. APPLICANT Michael Pearce Limited WARD Aughton And Downholland PARISH Aughton TARGET DATE 8th September 2014

1.0 REFERRAL

1.1 This application was to be determined under the Councils delegation scheme, however, Councillor O'Toole requested that it be referred to the Committee to consider the concerns of local residents.

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 1998/0800 - New entrance lobby; provision of new canopy at side; re-roofing to side and front elevations. GRANTED 29.10.1998

2.2 1992/0986 - Change of use from function suite to children’s day care nursery. GRANTED 04.02.1993

3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

3.1 HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (30/07/2014) – Do not have any objections regarding the proposed development and is of the opinion that the proposed development should have a negligible impact on highway safety and highway capacity in the immediate vicinity of the site. Recommend planning conditions.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (08/08/2014) – No objection to the application in principle. Only concerns relate to the potential for noise from the workshop area, as there is residential property adjacent on both sides, and to the lighting of the site - therefore recommend planning conditions.

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Two letters of objection to the development have been received on the grounds of: Parking is already a problem

Congestion

138 Back of the site joins the A59 which would encourage an advertising platform to attract business – totally out of keeping with the area and distraction to motorists.

Loss of privacy – front entrance, ground floor windows and front car park directly face house.

Level of noise from running engines

Area is a quiet semi-rural green belt area

The appearance of the building is modern and appears dark – would not like to suffer from loss of light.

4.2 An email has been received from Ms Morgan of 37 Smithy Lane withdrawing objection.

4.3 Further representation from no.23 Springfield Road. Concerns raised in relation to privacy as there are currently no ground floor windows facing house and the windows will face the lounge.

4.4 AUGHTON PARISH COUNCIL (18/08/2014) – Members noted the proposed change of use from a small restaurant with adequate car parking at the rear to a car showroom involving a Workshop facility at the rear (which could detrimentally affect residential amenity) and just 4 car parking spaces at the front (which could result in on road parking, again affecting residential amenity). An organised site visit was considered desirable to ensure the appropriate conditions in respect of 'noise' and 'parking' could be imposed.

5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

5.1 Planning Support Document

5.2 Phase 1 Desk Study Report

6.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

6.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt as designated in the West Lancashire Local Plan Proposal Map.

6.2 Relevant planning policies include:

West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development IF3 - Service accessibility and infrastructure for growth

139 EC2 – The Rural Economy IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choices

6.3 Supplementary Planning Document – Design Guide

6.4 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING

Site

7.1 The site relates to a detached two storey building which fronts directly onto Springfield Road. The property is currently vacant however its last use was a ground floor restaurant and first floor residential. To the rear of the property is a large area of hardstanding used for parking. The property is located to the west of Springfield Road and the site backs onto Northway (A59) at the rear. To the east and south side of the site are residential dwellings and to the north lies a boat yard and dwelling to the rear. The site is located within the Green Belt.

Proposal

7.2 This application seeks planning permission to demolish the existing building on the site and to erect a new build car sales facility with associated office unit, workshop, service yard and car park to the rear. The building will be single storey and provide garaging for up to a maximum of 16 cars.

7.3 The proposed unit will be open from 9:00 – 17:30 Monday to Friday. The applicant operates a dealership for luxury, performance and classic cars and advises that the showroom requirements differ from those dealing in mass market vehicles in that cars are usually viewed by appointment by clients looking for a specific product. The applicant states that only on rare occasions would the workshop operate on a Saturday. The facility will not be open on a Sunday or Bank Holidays. It is envisaged that the site will employ 3 full time and one part time employee.

Principle of Development

7.4 The site is located within the Green Belt, therefore the proposal must be considered in the context of the NPPF and Policy GN3 of the Local Plan. Paragraph 79 of the NPPF retains the government’s view that great importance is attached to Green Belts. It states that the fundamental aim of Green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green belt are their openness and their permanence.

7.5 However, the NPPF also advises in Paragraph 89 that development that includes ‘limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding

140 temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development’ is acceptable.

7.6 Although the footprint of the building would increase by approximately 13% over that of the existing building, I note that the volume of the proposed development would result in a 29% reduction. In comparison to the existing building the proposed building is more compact, has a less bulky appearance and its general massing is reduced. Rear car parking will be located on an existing area of hardstanding. The site is also located in a built up area of the Green Belt within an existing ribbon of mixed development. Therefore I consider that the proposed development would have no further material impact upon the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development.

7.7 In terms of the use of the building, Policy EC2 ‘The Rural Economy’ of the WLLP encourages and protects employment opportunities in rural areas. This approach is also advocated by the NPPF (part 3) which supports growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings. As the site was formally a restaurant I consider that as the development retains an employment generating use therefore the proposals would be in compliance with Policy EN2 of the WLLP and NPPF.

Design and External appearance

7.8 Policy GN3 of the WLLP states that proposals for development should be of a high quality design and in keeping with the West Lancashire Design Guide SPD.

7.9 The Council’s SPD Design Guide states that new development should be of a scale, mass and built form, which responds to the characteristics of the site and its surroundings. Care should be taken to ensure that buildings do not disrupt the visual amenities of the streetscene because of their height, scale or roofline.

7.10 The proposed building would be sited over a similar footprint to the existing property although it would be set slightly back from the Springfield Road frontage. I do not consider that stepping the building back would pose any harm to the character of the area and would in fact, be more in line with building lines of other properties along this section of Springfield Road.

7.11 The plans submitted show a pitched roof single storey building fronting the road with a long flat roof building to the rear. I do not have any concerns with the proposed design of the building and feel that it would offer a positive contribution to the street scene.

141 Highways

7.12 The site will be accessed via Springfield Road and will provide 4 parking spaces to the front of the site and 15 to the rear. On consultation with the Highway Authority no objections are raised and the County Surveyor is of the view that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable and the development should have a negligible impact on highway safety and highway capacity in the immediate vicinity of the site. The Highway Authority recommends planning conditions be attached to the permission in connection with manoeuvring areas and allocating the front four car parking spaces for customer use only.

Impact upon neighbouring properties

7.13 Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan states that development should “retain or create reasonable levels of privacy, amenity and sufficient garden / outdoor spaces for occupiers of the neighbouring and proposed properties”.

7.14 I note concerns raised by local residents in relation to the development. These concerns include parking problems, congestion, that the proposal will encourage advertising to the rear which will distract motorists on the A59, loss of privacy, loss of light and level of noise.

7.15 In terms of highway safety, the Highway Authority have been consulted on this planning application and have raised no objections (see paragraph 6.12). In terms of advertising this would require separate advertisement consent and would be assessed at the time of the application in consultation with the Highway Authority.

7.16 In terms of loss of privacy I note that the existing building does not have front ground floor windows but does have first floor windows serving residential accommodation. In my opinion given that the proposed building has been set back 3m from the Springfield Road frontage and that the proposed ground floor windows to the front maintain a minimum interface of 21m (as recommended by the Councils SPG) I do not consider the development will result in overlooking to neighbouring properties, sufficient to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

7.17 As the proposed building will replace an existing building which is greater in mass, bulk and general height I do not consider the built form of the proposed development would result in any significant impact upon the amenities of occupants of existing neighbouring properties or occupants of the potential future residential development at the adjacent boatyard (reference 2012/0797/FUL). Materials will be requested to be viewed as part of a planning condition.

7.18 Given that the site is located within a residential area the impact of noise has also been raised by a local resident both from vehicular movements and noise from the workshop bay. The application site will be open to the public by appointment

142 only within the hours of 09:00 to 17:30 Monday – Saturday. Taking this into consideration, it is my opinion that as the unit would have day time opening hours only – the development could potentially result in fewer comings and goings of vehicles than the previous restaurant use which had longer opening hours.

7.19 I have consulted with the Councils Environmental Health Officer with regard to the proposal. It has been confirmed that the use of the workshop / car wash will be for trade cars only and would not be open to the general public. To ensure that any potential impact of noise upon neighbouring properties is limited, conditions will be attached to any permission to ensure limited opening hours, valeting / servicing of vehicles takes place only inside of the building (with the doors kept closed), and that ventilation systems and lighting to be installed are agreed prior to the installation. On that basis it is not considered that noise from the site activities would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby residents, sufficient to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

Summary

7.20 Given the above I consider that the proposal satisfactorily meets the requirements of Policies GN1, GN3, IF3, EC2 and IF2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD together with National Planning Policy Framework.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 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 G02 B Rev B; LO3; 0207/620; GO1 Rev B and 0207/620 received by the Local Planning Authority on 08/09/2014. 3. No construction work shall take place until full details and samples of the external brickwork, roofing material and hardstanding 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 development shall take place until full details of the finished levels of all parts of the site, including the floor levels of all buildings, have been 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.

143 6. The premises shall not be open for business and no activities shall be carried out in the workshop except between the hours of 0800 and 1800 Mondays to Saturdays. 7. No valeting, servicing, repairs and MOT activities shall take place on the site other than inside the building hereby permitted. 8. The doors to the buildings shall be kept closed whilst any valeting, servicing, repairs and MOT activities are taking place within the workshop, except for access to and egress from the buildings. 9. No external lighting shall be installed on the site until full details of the lighting and its siting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All external lighting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the agreed scheme. 10. No development 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. 11. The car parking and manoeuvring spaces shall be marked out in accordance with the approved plan, before the use of the premises hereby permitted becomes operative and shall permanently be maintained thereafter. 12. The four car parking spaces fronting Springfield Road shall be marked for customer use only. 13. No development shall take place until the details and location of any mechanical ventilation systems that are to be installed on the premises are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, mechanical ventilation systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved details. No other such systems shall be installed thereafter without the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 14. No more than six cars for sale shall be parked on the rear car park and the remaining spaces shall be kept available for staff and customer parking.

Reasons 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. 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. 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.

144 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 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 protect the amenity 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. 7. To protect the amenity 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. 8. To protect the amenity 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. 9. To protect the amenity 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. 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 allow for the effective use of the parking areas and to ensure compliance with Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 12. To allow for the effective use of the parking areas and to ensure compliance with Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 13. To protect the amenity 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. 14. To allow the effective use of parking areas and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policies GN3 and IF2 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 Policies in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document:

GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development IF3 - Service accessibility and infrastructure for growth EC2 – The Rural Economy IF2 – Enhancing Sustainable Transport Choices

together with Supplementary Planning Guidance and all relevant material considerations. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal

145 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.

146 No.12 APPLICATION 2014/0601/FUL NO. LOCATION Land North West and South West of, Gerard Hall, Prescot Road, Aughton PROPOSAL Construction of a solar farm, to include the installation of solar panels to generate electricity with transformer housing, DNO substation, switch room, operation and storage rooms, security fencing and cameras, landscaping and other associated works. APPLICANT HIVE Energy Limited WARD Aughton And Downholland PARISH Aughton TARGET DATE

1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

1.1 2012/0989/FUL REFUSED – Erection of 60m wind turbine.

2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

2.1 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (11/8/14) – Development will meet with national policy providing the measures within the Flood Risk Assessment are implemented - Recommend a condition. 2.2 COUNCIL FOR THE PROTECTION OF RURAL ENGLAND (24/7/14) – Solar farms offer great renewables opportunities. However, should not be at the expense of the countryside. Will reduce the gap between conurbations of Ormskirk and Merseyside. Impact upon food production. Will residents feel boxed in? Other local authorities have refused similar proposals. 2.3 SEFTON COUNCIL (24/7/14) – No objection but the following should be considered: Loss of agricultural land; West Lancashire is competent authority in respect of Habitats Regulations; MEAS request to be consulted on any Habitats Regulations Assessment; Agree with the Environment Agency’s condition request.

147 2.4 LCC HIGHWAYS (7/8/14) – No highway objections to the principle of the development. The greatest impact of the development on the local highway network will be during the construction period, particularly during the early construction phase. The Transport Assessment shows that there are no highway capacity issues associated with the development.. A Construction Management Plan should be implemented. Conditions required for the following: Construction of site accesses; Road condition; Details of passing places along Butchers Lane; Details of Construction Management Plan. 2.5 LCC FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT TEAM (8/8/14) – Development is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on local flood risk given no net increase in impermeable area. Recommend condition for submission of a drainage scheme. 2.6 NATURAL ENGLAND 2/9/14 – Not necessary to offer mitigation for Pink Footed Geese nor to avoid construction works during the peak wintering season. 23/7/14 - The proposed development is unlikely to lead to significant and irreversible long term loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, as a resource for future generations. This is because the solar panels would be secured to the ground by steel piles with limited soil disturbance and could be removed in the future with no permanent loss of agricultural land quality likely to occur, provided the development is undertaken to high standards. 2.7 LCC ECOLOGY – 17/9/14 – No significant effect on wintering bird populations or on a European site. If proposals result in a loss of wintering bird habitat then it would be appropriate for the applicant to compensate for that loss by enhancing other suitable areas of land for wintering birds in this area. The proposed Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMs) within the ecological survey are appropriate to avoid impacts upon Great Crested Newts but would recommend a condition to erect an amphibian exclusion fence around the pond to prevent any amphibians using the pond from entering the working area. Planning condition required for the landscaping, habitat creation and management plan.

148 24/9/14 – The proposed area of mitigation is suitable to offset potential impacts of wintering bird habitat loss. 2.8 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES -

4/9/14 - Noise from fixed plant at the proposed site will be very low, and therefore I consider a background assessment of existing noise levels to be unnecessary.

Recommend condition restricting hours of construction.

5/8/14 – No detrimental effect from glint and glare.

2.9 NATIONAL PLANNING CASEWORK UNIT (10/7/14) – No comment in respect of Environmental Impact Assessment.

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 AUGHTON PARISH COUNCIL (25/8/14) – Object to the proposed development on the following grounds: Impact on listed building; Impact on Green Belt; Impact on biodiversity; Disadvantages outweigh benefits; No noise assessment; Impact on residential amenity; Insufficient information has been submitted to determine the application.

3.2 CONSERVATION AREA ADVISORY PANEL (26/6/14) –

Consider the development should be refused on the grounds that the proposed ‘solar farm’ would be highly visible within the surrounding landscape to Gerard’s Hall and would cause harm to its historic setting. 3.3 I have received 45 letters from the public, West Lancashire Civic Trust and Aughton Residents Group objecting to the proposed development on the following grounds: Loss of agricultural land; Should be on industrial roofs and households Loss of countryside; Other more suitable sites; Traffic hazard; We had permission refused for an extension on Green Belt grounds Impact on wildlife; Inappropriate development in the Green Belt; Harm to listed building; Will create a brownfield site; Disruption through construction period; Encouragement for crime;

149 Why is timescale so short to comment on application? Proposal receiving biased opinion from Assistant Director of Planning in pre- application response; Impact on Public Rights of Way; Hedgerow will not be in leaf for 6 months of the year; Sequential Analysis Study deeply flawed – very convenient that this site is the only site; Industrial type development; Adverse change to character of area; Not in accordance with Sheep Husbandry guidelines; How will grass grow under panels? 25 year lifetime is pointless; Loss of view; Loss of privacy – proposed CCTV cameras; If granted we will be asking for a review of our Council Tax rates; Planning Inspectors have dismissed similar appeals; Noise impact; EIA bears little resemblance to the land in question; Land supports large Pink Footed Goose population; Brown Hare regular visitor to site; Fence panels will create snow drifts in winter; Motivation is to increase revenue for landowner; Rail commuters will have a grim entrance to West Lancashire; 40 security cameras; Why are residents given short timescales to comment? Relevant case law to refuse; Not a reliable source of energy given the sunshine hours in the UK.

3.4 I have received 39 letters in support of the proposed development for the following reasons:

Generate renewable energy; Rural diversification; Sheep grazing and wildflowers is preferable to current farming practices; Low visual impact; Will provide consumer choice for energy; Community orchard is an excellent idea; In Germany 50% of electricity is from renewables; Economic and health benefits; Temporary impact; Removal of fertilisers and pesticides from the land; Well screened site; All expect to be able to turn the lights on; Reliance on fossil fuels has to be reduced; Opportunity for biodiversity enhancement; Minimal on site construction; No loss of Green belt land as temporary use.

150 4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

4.1 The following documents have been submitted in support of the planning application:

Environmental Statement Tree Survey Report, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan Sequential Analysis Study and Assessment of Potential Alternative Sites relating to Previously Developed Land Agricultural Spatial Report Environmental Enhancement Plan Planning Statement Design & Access Statement Statement of Community Involvement Noise Assessment 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.

5.2 The site is located within the Green Belt and within the Landscape Character Area of ‘Aughton and Bickerstaffe’. The land is a mix of Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land. Gerard’s Hall is a Grade II Listed Building. The following policies are therefore relevant:

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Supporting a prosperous rural economy Requiring good design Promoting healthy communities Protecting Green Belt land Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

West Lancashire Local Plan Document (WLLP) GN1 – Settlement Boundaries GN3 – Criteria for Sustainable Development EC2 – The Rural Economy 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

151 6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

The Site 6.1 The application site is located across two relatively flat parcels of land combined to form an area of approximately 37 hectares. A public footpath divides the two parcels and this runs east – west. Gerard Hall is a Grade II listed building which lies immediately to the east. Prescott Road is located to the east with Butchers Lane to the south. The Ormskirk – Liverpool railway line is located to the west along a raised embankment. Hedgerows enclose the site on all of its boundaries. Residential properties are located opposite the site along Butchers Lane and off Prescott Road. The site is located within an area designated as Green Belt. The Proposal

6.2 The proposed development consists of a 17MW solar power generation park consisting of banks of solar panels arranged in linear lines. Inclusive of boundary landscaping and security fencing the total area covered by the development will be 37.01 hectares. Each row of panels will be mounted on a rack supported by pile driven foundations or ground screws to avoid the use of concrete foundations. The panels would be mounted at 0.8m from the ground rising to a maximum of 2.5m high. The panels would be tilted at 20 degrees from the horizontal, would be fixed in place (rather than moveable) and all orientated to face due south. At their closest point the panels will be set back 30m from Prescott Road and 20m from Butchers Lane, with greater set back distances in the south-eastern corner of up to 160m from Prescot Road. Access to the site for construction and on-going operational and decommissioning purposes is proposed from two existing field accesses off Butchers Lane. Along with the solar panels the following equipment and infrastructure will be constructed: 2.3m high wire mesh fence around the perimeter of the two blocks of solar panels; 9 x transformer buildings measuring 3.3m x 2.8m x 2.4m high at strategic points across the site. These would be colour coated green and would collect the power generated before being transferred to the grid; 1 x control building (customer substation) measuring 3.7m x 3.2m x 2.7m high, colour coated green and located to the west of the entrance road. This building is retained by the developer and incorporates switchgear which ensures the safety and security of the energy supplied 1 x District Operator Network (DNO) substation measuring 6.6m x 6.9m x 4.2m high, colour coated green and located to the west of the entrance road. This building would be operated by the DNO and contains the metering point to verify the quantity of energy being produced by the plant 2 x operation and storage buildings measuring 6.2m x 2.4m x 2.6m high, colour coated green and located to the south of each block of panels (these are only required during the construction phase of the development) 24 x 3m high CCTV posts with 40 cameras in total with certain posts accommodating more than one camera;

152 Internal access tracks will cross the site and will be surfaced in gravel;

It is proposed that the site would be decommissioned after 25 years.

Policy Background 6.3 Renewable Energy

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

6.4 The Government aims for 15% of all electricity to come from renewable energy sources by 2020 (UK Renewable Energy Strategy).

6.5 One of the core planning principles stated in paragraph 17 of the NPPF is to ‘support the transition to a low carbon future in changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy)’.

6.6 Paragraph 93 states that ‘Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development’.

6.7 Paragraph 98 of the NPPF advises that when determining planning applications local planning authorities should:

Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse emissions; and

Approve the application, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

6.8 Paragraph 13 of this Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Chapter sets out a number of factors that need to be considered by Local Planning Authorities in determining applications for large-scale solar farms. It states that ‘the deployment of large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes. However, the visual impact of a well- planned and well-screened solar farm can be properly addressed within the landscape if planned sensitively’.

153 National Planning Statement – Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1)

6.9 This sets out the national policy for energy infrastructure and at paragraph 2.2.6 states that ‘the UK needs to wean itself off a high carbon energy mix: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to improve the security, availability and affordability of energy through diversification’.

West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD (WLLP)

6.10 Policy EN1 of the WLLP supports proposals for renewable, low carbon or decentralised energy schemes, provided they can demonstrate that they will not result in unacceptable harm to the local environment, having regard to policies EN2 and EN4, which cannot be satisfactorily addressed and which is not outweighed by the benefits of such proposals.

6.11 Green Belt

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

6.12 The NPPF attaches great importance to Green Belts and advises that Green Belt policy should prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 87 advises that ‘inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances’.

6.13 Paragraph 91 states that ‘when located within the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable resources’.

West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD (WLLP) 6.14 Policy GN1 of the WLLP states that development proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed against national policy and any relevant Local Plan policies.

Green Belt

Inappropriate Development

6.15 The whole of the 37ha site is located within land designated as Green Belt. Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF set out the forms of development deemed not inappropriate in the Green Belt. The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of development set out. Moreover, paragraph 91 of the NPPF states that when located within the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development.

154 6.16 On that basis the proposal would be an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF explains that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 88 clarifies that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

6.17 Paragraph 79 of the NPPF advises that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. Openness is generally defined as the absence of built form and development and this does not depend on visibility. In addition to the vast array of the solar panels themselves and their resultant impact upon the openness of the Green Belt, the proposal also comprises a number of other elements such as the fencing, access tracks, CCTV poles and cameras, nine transformers, two substations and two operation storage rooms required for a temporary period. The cumulative impact of all these elements will magnify the impact of the proposed development upon the openness of the Green Belt.

Any other harm

6.18 Paragraph 80 of the NPPF identifies the five purposes of the Green Belt. The third purpose is ‘to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’. The proposed development also represents encroachment within the countryside.

Very Special Circumstances

6.19 It is important that Green Belt consideration should assess, in a balanced way, the very special circumstances put forward by the applicant as the implications for such a large development in the Green Belt are widespread. There are no defined criteria for assessing what constitutes very special circumstances and each case must be judged on its own merits. A number of very special circumstances have been presented by the applicant. These include:

6.20 Creation of Renewable Energy – This is a 17MW scheme and as a result will provide 16.39 million kwh of electricity each year. This level of generation is the equivalent energy requirements of 4,967 average UK homes, off-setting 7,049 tonnes of CO2 emissions each year.

6.21 Hedgerow Planting – Over 1.3km of hedgerow planting will be installed within the fields and along the footpaths.

6.22 Wildflower Meadow – 12.4 hectares of land will be turned into a wildflower meadow around the perimeter of the site.

6.23 Community Orchard – This is proposed in the south-western area of the site and will contain over 200 fruit trees and will be open to the local community.

155 6.24 Education – Resources will be made available to encourage and enable the teaching of local school children and residents about solar farms and the importance of renewable energy use.

6.25 Extent of Green Belt land within the Borough – West Lancashire is washed over by Green Belt aside from the settlement areas. Green Belt constitutes approximately 91% of the land within the Borough. The number of non-Green Belt sites of this scale within the Borough is minimal.

Assessment of Very Special Circumstances

6.26 It is imperative that the above very special circumstances put forward by the applicant are carefully and properly considered. The proposal would cause harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and because of the reduction in openness it would involve and its encroachment into the countryside. The proposal is on a temporary basis and so the harm in Green Belt terms would be temporary and reversible. Nevertheless, paragraph 88 of the NPPF tells us that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt.

6.27 Against all that the proposal would have a total capacity of 17MW, meeting the needs of around 5,000 homes, and offsetting 7000 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. Reflective of wider Government policy, designed to address the potential impacts of climate change, and to ensure energy security, one of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to encourage the use of renewable resources. Paragraph 97 says that to help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources.

6.28 On top of that, while paragraph 91 of the NPPF accepts that very special circumstances will need to be demonstrated if renewable energy projects are to proceed in the Green Belt, it continues that such very special circumstances may include wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable resources. It is clear therefore that renewable energy projects are not prohibited outright in the Green Belt. It is a matter of balancing any benefits they would bring forward against any harm they would cause.

6.29 Alongside the creation of a significant amount of renewable energy, economically, the creation of the solar farm would assist rural diversification and would provide a mixed use of the land functioning for agricultural purposes, for the production of renewable energy, for recreational purposes and by offering enhanced wildlife and biodiversity.

6.30 Socially the proposal would bring benefits through the creation of the community orchard and by offering opportunities to educate members of the community and school children in respect of the importance of renewable energy.

156 6.31 Finally the proposal would have biodiversity and environmental benefits through the planting of hedgerows and wildflower meadow areas over substantial areas within the site. Such enhancement of the natural environment is advocated in core planning principle 7 of the NPPF.

6.32 Paragraph 6 of the NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF goes on to say that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The aforementioned special circumstances contribute to all three dimensions required to achieve sustainable development. Therefore, whilst the development is inappropriate and harm will be caused to the Green Belt, given that this will be for a temporary 25 year period and the considerable benefits of the proposal outlined above, I consider that the very special circumstances will all contribute to the ‘golden thread’ of sustainable development (NPPF, paragraph 14), and will outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

Landscape Character and Visual Amenity

6.33 As part of its core principles, the NPPF (paragraph 17) requires account to be taken of the different roles and character of different areas, and recognition be given to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Paragraphs 58 and 109 seek to achieve visually attractive schemes as a result of appropriate landscaping and the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes. Policy EN2 of the WLLP requires new development to take advantage of its landscape setting and historic landscape by having regard to the different landscape character types across the Borough. The level of protection afforded depends on the quality, importance and uniqueness of the landscape in question as defined in the Council’s SPG ‘Natural Areas and Areas of Landscape History and Importance’.

6.34 The site falls within the National Landscape Character Area ‘Lancashire and Amounderness Plain’, Regional Landscape Character Area ‘Coastal Plain’ (sub- area Ormskirk-Lathom-Rufford) and Local Landscape Character ‘2B Aughton and Bickerstaffe’. It is not located within an area important for its landscape history nor is it in a conservation area. The above character areas are described as being ‘areas of high agricultural land’, ‘a patchwork of lush pasture and arable fields on a relatively flat to gentle rolling coastal landscape’ and ‘gently undulating land or flat lowland farmland divided by ditches’ The landform of the site is generally flat, falling very gently east to west. The area is characterised by scattered built development within a hedgerow bounded road network with scattered woodland blocks.

6.35 The proposed solar panels would be set back from the edges of the existing hedgerows that follow the surrounding roads; Prescot Road and Butchers Lane. The northern bank of panels will have a 30m stand off distance from Prescot Road. The southern bank will have a stand off distance of 50m along the eastern

157 boundary with Prescot Road and a minimum of 20m along the southern boundary with Butchers Lane. The proposed development also includes the installation of nine transformers over the site. The transformer stations are kept towards the centre of the field, are relatively small in size and integrated within the wider development. In addition they do not exceed the height of the solar panels and therefore their visual impact is limited. In addition to the transformers the scheme also incorporates the provision of two substations, both of which are located close together within southern part of the site. The larger of the two buildings (DNO substation) is located within the community orchard and whilst the height of this building would exceed the solar panels, its visual impact is mitigated by the screening afforded by the planting. On balance therefore, it is accepted that the proposed associated buildings are necessary for the general operation of the proposal solar farm, have been kept to minimum sizes and have been sited appropriately within the wider site to limit their visual impact.

6.36 The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) incorporates a range of viewpoints (13 in total) regarded as representative of the range of views and receptors from around the site. The LVIA takes into consideration the intended landscaping across the site which will include a new hedgerow along the eastern boundary of the site and hedgerows along both sides of the public footpath that crosses the site. Existing hedgerows would be enhanced with the gaps in-filled and the trimming regime changed to allow the boundary hedges to grow up to a height of 2.5m-3m.

6.37 Out of the 13 viewpoints there is only one where the LVIA has assessed the visual effect as ‘major adverse’ - this is a near distance view from the public footpath which crosses the site. The proposed development would be glimpsed from near distance views from Prescot Road to the east and from Mickering Lane to the north. Views from Butchers Lane to the south would be possible through the two access points alongside the road and from upstairs windows of those properties facing north. Views from the west are likely to be obscured by the railway embankment (unless travelling by train). Thus, the greatest visual impacts of the development are likely to be from users of the public footpath through the site, however these receptors are transient in nature and any impact would be for a limited moment in time. For the residents along Butchers Lane, the minimum 20m set back of the panels from the road, the hedgerow and proposed community orchard will all limit the impact when viewed from first floor windows.

6.38 Although the character of the site would be changed by this proposal, any effect would be restricted to the site itself with the key landscape elements and features of the site and surrounding area remaining unaffected. Recent Government guidance (PPG) sets out that local topography is an important factor in assessing whether large scale solar-farms could have a damaging impact in rural areas. Therefore it is appropriate to assess whether by sensitive planning and screening the visual impact of the solar farm can be properly addressed within the landscape. Overall, in this instance, given that the proposed solar panels would be dark in colour, low lying, follow the existing topography of the relatively flat site

158 and will be well screened by the surrounding hedgerows. The associated buildings would be well screened by additional planting and are modest in size and colour coated green to blend into the landscape. I therefore agree with the conclusion offered in the LVIA that the solar farm can be accommodated into this landscape without causing unacceptable harm to its landscape character and visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

Agricultural Land

6.39 Paragraph 111 of the NPPF encourages the effective use of land by reusing brownfield land provided that it is not of high environmental quality, and paragraph 112 indicates that significant development of agricultural land should be shown to be necessary and, where this is demonstrated, areas of poorer quality land should be used in preference to that of a higher quality.

6.40 Paragraph 13 of the recently published PPG sets out particular planning considerations that relate to solar development. The first two factors are:

encouraging the effective use of land by focussing large scale solar farms on previously developed and non-agricultural land, provided that it is not of high environmental value; where a proposal involves greenfield land, whether (i) the proposed use of any agricultural land has been shown to be necessary and poorer quality land has been used in preference to higher quality land; and (ii) the proposal allows for continued agricultural use where applicable and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays.

6.41 The PPG also makes reference to a speech by the Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Greg Barker, to the solar panel industry at the Large Scale Solar Conference on 25th April 2013. In this speech Greg Barker said ‘’…for larger deployments, brownfield land should always be preferred’’ and went on to add ‘’we need to be careful that we do not over-incentivise large-scale ground- mounted projects in inappropriate places – I am thinking of greenfield agricultural land…’’ and ‘’where solar farms are not on brownfield land, you must be looking at low grade agricultural land…’’.

6.42 In addition, Nick Boles in his oral statement in the House of Commons on 29th January 2014 stated that ‘’where significant development is necessary on agricultural land, the national planning policy framework is equally clear that local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality in preference to that of higher quality. Where land is designated at a relatively high grade it should not be preferred for the siting of such developments’’.

6.43 Furthermore, the UK Solar PV Strategy: Part 2 of April 2014 sets out the Solar Trade Association’s ‘’Solar Farms: 10 Commitments’’, the first of which is that focus will be on non-agricultural land or land which is of lower agricultural quality.

159 6.44 It is therefore clear that the emphasis from Government is to avoid using the best and most versatile land (BMV) for large scale solar arrays wherever reasonably possible. If BMV agricultural land is to be used, this should be the last resort, and it must be robustly demonstrated that it is justified.

6.45 The Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales provides a framework for classifying land according to the extent to which its physical or chemical characteristics impose long- term limitations on agricultural use. The principal physical factors influencing agricultural production are climate, site and soil. These factors together with interactions between them form the basis for classifying land into one of five grades; Grade 1 land being of excellent quality through to Grade 5 land of very poor quality. Grades 1, 2 and 3a are considered to be the ‘best and most versatile land’ (BMV).

6.46 In terms of Defra’s Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) map of England and Wales, the majority of the site is classified as Grade 1 and the south-eastern corner is classified as Grade 2. However, these maps were created over 30 years ago, in the early 1980’s, and have never been updated. Consequently, the applicant has undertaken their own ALC survey which grades none of the site as Grade 1, but rather a mixture of Grade 2 (10ha/27%), Grade 3a (11.9ha/32.5%) and Grade 3b (11.8ha/31.5%). To verify this the Council instructed an independent Soil Environmentalist to undertake the same exercise. This report concurs with the applicant’s submission that none of the land within the application site can be afforded Grade 1 categorisation, but instead the site combines a mixture of Grades 2 and 3a (BMV) and Grade 3b (Moderate).

6.47 Based on the above findings, approximately 66.5% of the application site relates to undeveloped BMV agricultural land which has recently been in arable crop production. The proposed development would result in a change from this arable use to solar power generation together with sheep grazing underneath and around the solar panels. Whilst the development would not have a permanent effect on the land, it would take the site out of arable use for the 25 year duration of the development.

6.48 Consequently, the application is supported by a Sequential Analysis Study (SAS) to justify the development of the solar farm on this site rather than on previously developed land or land of lesser agricultural value.

6.49 There is no national or local guidance when defining a study area and each case should be considered on its own merits taking into account of planning and operational constraints. In this instance, the determining factors were whether there is sufficient grid capacity with an appropriate point of connection – this is a key factor as there are limited grid connections within the Borough to accommodate such capacity.,

Is the use of agricultural land necessary?

160 6.50 To address this point, an assessment has been undertaken by the applicant in respect of alternative sites that comprised previously developed land (PDL). Potential sites of 2ha or larger were included (considered to be ‘large scale’ solar development) and those that were in suitable proximity to the grid connection. Based on the above criteria, 7 sites were identified across the Borough for further assessment. They range in size from 2.2ha (Burscough Airfield) to 16.6ha (Platts Lane, Burscough). Apart from one of the sites (Statham Road, Skelmersdale) all of the sites were found to be constrained and unsuitable for solar development for various reasons including inter alia contamination, impact on heritage assets, ground stability and lack of existing screening. Statham Road is allocated as a Strategic Employment Site within the local plan and so its protection for employment purposes would carry significant weight for a site of this size (3.8ha). I am satisfied that the information provided in respect of potential alternative PDL sites is satisfactory and I accept the findings providing by the applicant in that there are no suitable PDL sites within the Borough and subsequently the use of agricultural land is necessary.

Does the development result in the use of poorer quality rather than higher quality agricultural land?

6.51 Across the application site there is a mixture of Grade 2, 3a and 3b agricultural land. Therefore, to address this test, an assessment has been undertaken by the applicant in respect of alternative sites of Grade 3 or lower agricultural grading, subject to the same or fewer environmental constraints and within suitable proximity to the grid connection. Based on this set of criteria, 13 sites were identified across the Borough for further assessment. They range in size from 9.4ha (North of High Moor Lane, Wrightington) to 30.3ha (West of Moss Lane, Wrightington). Owing to the high agricultural land values across the Borough, of the 13 sites only a small percentage of one of the sites (Copyhold Farm, Wrightington) is below Grade 3. Taking this factor into account and due to a mixture of other constraints including inter alia unsuitable access arrangements, site topography distance to residential properties, siting within the Green Belt and smaller site areas, none of the 13 sites were considered to be more suitable for this solar development. Consequently, as with the above PDL sites, I am satisfied that the application is supported by satisfactory evidence to conclude that there are no other suitable sites of poorer quality agricultural land within the Borough and thus the use of this site is acceptable in principle.

Does the use allow for continued agricultural use and/or encourage biodiversity improvements around arrays?

6.52 The proposal involves the use of the land under and in between the panels for the grazing of sheep thereby providing a continued agricultural use. In terms of biodiversity improvements, along with native species hedgerow restoration and planting, a considerable amount of tree planting will take place as well as wildflower meadow planting which will benefit the biodiversity in this locality.

161 Conclusion on the use of BMV agricultural land

6.53 Whilst the proposed life of the solar farm is 25 years and accepting that some restoration of land would be required, I consider that the land would not be irreversibly lost for agriculture. Natural England is a statutory consultee on development that would lead to the loss of over 20ha of BMV. In their response, Natural England concurred with this view and raised no objections to the proposed development on the grounds that it is unlikely to lead to significant irreversible long term loss of BMV. Furthermore, the proposal indicates that the land beneath and between the panels will be continued to be used for agricultural purposes through the grazing of rare breed Hebridian sheep. Although this might be seen as a minimum level of agricultural activity, it nevertheless constitutes an accepted farming practice that could be employed by the land owner at any time regardless of this proposal. I am aware that grazing sheep under solar panels is now common practice in the UK and studies have shown that sheep farming and solar panels can operate successfully together. Overall therefore, I am satisfied that the use of this land for solar energy along with the continued agricultural use by the grazing of sheep and biodiversity enhancement is acceptable and there will be no loss of higher grade agricultural land.

Heritage Assets

6.54 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. Paragraph 13 of the PPG states that: great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting. As the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence, but also from its setting, careful consideration should be given to the impact of large scale solar farms on such assets. Depending on their scale, design and prominence, a large scale solar farm within the setting of a heritage asset may cause substantial harm to the significance of the asset.

6.55 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 which 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.

6.56 Policy EN4 of the WLLP has a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and states that development will not be permitted that

162 adversely affects listed buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM), a conservation area, historic park or garden or archaeological remains.

6.57 With regards to guidance provided by English Heritage ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets (October 2011)’ this identifies a whole list of attributes to consider when assessing the likely impact of development on the setting of heritage assets which include;

Location and proximity to asset(s) and impact on views;

Form and appearance of the development;

Effects on surrounding space/landscape/skyline;

Degree of permanence.

6.58 The Cultural Heritage and Archaeology section of the EIA includes an assessment of the impact of development on nearby heritage assets. There are no World Heritage Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens or Registered Battlefields within the site or its vicinity. The impact of the development would be most closely felt on Gerard Hall Farmhouse, a Grade II Listed Building.

6.59 Gerard Hall is located approximately 90m north of the southern plot and 120m south of the northern plot. Owing to its grade II listing, it is considered to be a heritage asset of ‘Medium’ value. Planning application 2012/0989/FUL for a single wind turbine of 60.7m high was refused in June 2013 on the basis of it causing unreasonable harm to this particular heritage asset. Although this proposed development will be in closer proximity to Gerard Hall than the refused wind turbine, the impact is considerably different owing to the significant height difference in that of the turbine (60.7m) and the much lower height of the proposed solar panels (max. 2.5m).

6.60 The proposed development will be screened by a buffer of trees that surround Gerard Hall, and any partial visibility of the proposed development, which would appear as a low lying array of panels through the tree buffer, is not considered to harm any of the important elements of the asset’s setting. The content of the views when viewed from Prescot Road towards Gerard Hall will be altered, and the panels will be visible to both the north and south of the Hall and its associated buildings and areas of plantation. The agricultural foreground, however, will remain and the appreciation of the relationship between the Hall and the surrounding agricultural land will be preserved. Furthermore, Gerard Hall will remain prominent within these views.

6.61 Consequently, the proposed development will result in an alteration to the setting of this asset, but it will not alter any of the important elements of its setting. The magnitude of change is therefore considered to be ‘Low’. The significance of effect is considered to be ‘Minor Adverse’. This reflects the fact that the Hall does

163 not directly overlook the proposed solar array, would remain a prominent landscape feature and is well screened by the surrounding plantings. The proposed development is therefore in accordance with the NPPF, NPPG and Policy EN4 of the WLLP.

Biodiversity

6.62 The NPPF and Policy EN2 in the WLLP seek to protect biodiversity by resisting development which would destroy or adversely affect important wildlife habitats. The proposed development is considered to fall within Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (EIA) – 3) Energy Industry (a) industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water (unless included in Schedule 1) and exceeds the threshold of 0.5ha. Whilst the site is not located within a Sensitive Area as defined by Regulation 2(1) of the EIA Regulations (i.e. sites designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Parks, World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and sites covered by internal conservation designations), it does lie adjacent to an identified Natura 2000 qualifying habitat, designated as such due to the use of the area as feeding grounds for pink footed geese. Consequently an EIA has been undertaken and the application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement covering a number of areas including the impact of the development upon the nearby Natura 2000 site.

Pink Footed Geese

6.63 This area of the Borough is known for its use by wintering pink-footed geese (PFG) as it lies close to an identified area of supporting habitat to a Natura 2000 site within West Lancashire and adjoining Merseyside Authority areas, primarily designated as such due to the use of the area as feeding grounds for PFG’s. The survey information undertaken in respect of this site concluded that the fields within the application site are not considered to be a regular foraging site for PFG due to the general absence of preferred foraging crops and the location of the site beyond typical commuting routes. The nearest area recorded to be regularly used by PFG is located approximately 500m north east of the site boundary and extends eastwards from there. Thus, the loss of this open agricultural land would not result in population level effects and there is therefore no likely significant effect on a European site. However, Natural England and the County Ecologist have stated that there would be a loss in wintering bird habitat and it is appropriate for the applicant to compensate for loss by enhancing other suitable areas of land for wintering birds in this area.

6.64 Consequently, the scheme offers up a compensatory area of land (32 acres) which is within the applicant’s ownership, to the north-east of the site on the opposite side of Prescot Road. Whilst this compensatory site is smaller than the application site, given that the site is not used by large flocks of PFG’s on a regular basis, The County Ecologist has confirmed that this is acceptable and appropriate enhancement of this mitigation area should offset potential impacts.

164 In order to secure and deliver this area of land as mitigation, the applicant will be required to enter into a Unilateral Undertaking.

6.65 The applicant is not required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations, however, WLBC, as the competent authority, is still required to consider the matter of significance of the proposed development on internationally important surrounding features either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. As discussed above, the proposal will offer a suitable mitigation area for PFG and consequently I am satisfied that the proposed development is in accordance with the Habitats Regulations in this respect.

Other Birds

6.66 The arable habitats within the application site together with those in the surrounding landscape are likely to support a suite of breeding and wintering birds, however this is affected by modern farming practices. The ecological survey did not record any significant bird assemblages during the site survey. The hedgerows around the fringes of the site provide suitable habitat for nesting birds and these will remain as part of the development.

Bats

6.67 The ecological survey did not identify any roosts within the application site and the fields do not contain suitable roost features. Given that no mature trees or woodland are to be removed to facilitate the development, there will be a negligible impact on bats roosts. In terms of bat foraging, the hedgerows and woodland will remain unaffected and thus there will be no loss of foraging habitat. The creation of the 12.4ha wildflower meadow will provide improved bat foraging habitat.

Badgers

6.68 No evidence of badger activity or the presence of a sett was observed during the survey. However, badgers are known to forage widely across similar habitats in the UK and it is possible that badgers may occasionally visit the site as part of a wider territory. As a precautionary approach a pre-construction badger survey is recommended – this will be required by imposition of a planning condition.

Great Crested Newts, Amphibians and Reptiles

6.69 There is a pond located along the eastern boundary of the site. Being set within an arable field this pond lacks connectivity to wider habitat features and has been assessed as having a below average suitability to support Great Crested Newts. In terms of amphibians and reptiles, whilst none were recorded during the surveys, their presence cannot be fully excluded and therefore a precautionary approach will be adopted and a series of Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMs) will be implemented during construction to avoid impacts.

165 Trees, Hedgerows and Woodland

6.70 Policy EN2 of the WLLP requires all development to include appropriate landscaping proposals and advocates an increase in tree cover. Although the proposed solar arrays will cover an extensive area of land, the submitted ‘Tree Survey Report, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan’, indicates that no trees are to be removed to facilitate the development nor will any existing landscape features be removed. In fact the development will provide an extensive amount of tree planting by way of the proposed community orchard in the south-western portion of the site and through the planting of 1.3km of new native hedgerow. Conditions will be attached to ensure details of long-term maintenance and management, as well as plant specifications and planting schedules are suitable.

Highway Safety

6.71 Access for construction and on-going operational purposes is proposed from the existing field accesses off Butchers Lane to the south of the site. These will be improved by widening and resurfacing and two passing places along Butchers Lane are proposed, the details of which will be finalised by appropriately worded conditions.

6.72 When operational the solar farm will not give rise to significant traffic movements (1-2 maintenance vehicles per month). Therefore, I consider that the operational phase of the development will not result in any significant effects in terms of vehicular movements and access.

6.73 Throughout the construction period (approximately 3 months) the trip generation will vary throughout the different weeks of construction, varying from 41 per week in weeks 1 to 3, 24 per week in weeks 4 to 10 and 9 per week in weeks 11 and 12. Whilst this will increase traffic movements within the area in the short-term, subject to a Construction Management Plan, I do not consider that the development will result in a detrimental impact upon the local highway network. The County Highways Surveyor is also satisfied with the proposed development subject to conditions. On this basis the proposed development is accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF and Policy GN3 of the WLLP.

Public Rights of Way

6.74 Footpath FP17 crosses through the site between the northern block of panels and the southern block. This footpath is currently a field track and will remain open. The proposal will incorporate new hedge planting on both sides of the footpath where needed. Footpath FP19 runs off FP17 northwards along the eastern boundary of the northern block of panels. As with FP17, this will remain unobstructed and the land to the east will be seeded with a wildflower meadow mix.

166 Flood Risk and Drainage

6.75 The site lies wholly within Flood Zone 1. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted in support of the application in order to comply with Paragraphs 99-104 of the NPPF which require an FRA for proposals of 1 hectare or greater in Flood Zone 1. The FRA identifies that the proposed development would have only a very limited extent of impermeable ground cover as the area beneath the panels would remain grassed. Rainwater falling onto the panels would drain freely onto the ground beneath and infiltrate into the ground at the same rate as it currently does. Existing drainage features would be retained and, although not necessary, a SUDS strategy in the form of swales to intercept extreme flows would be provided as a form of ‘betterment’.

6.76 Both the Environment Agency and LCC as the Lead Local Flood Authority have reviewed the FRA and are satisfied with its contents subject to a condition being attached requiring full details of a surface water drainage scheme.

Residential Amenity

6.77 One of the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF is that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of buildings. Policy GN3 of the WLLP requires development to retain reasonable levels of privacy and amenity for occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Noise

6.78 Paragraph 123 of the NPPF sets out that planning policies should avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.

6.79 The nearest residential properties are located to the south along Butchers Lane and between the two banks of solar panels at Gerard Hall, St Mary’s Barn and The Paddocks, all off Prescot Road. The noise assessment accompanying the planning application demonstrates that the noise from the fixed plant will be very low at the nearest noise sensitive receptors (25 Db(A)). On this basis the Council’s Environmental Health Officer did not consider it necessary for the applicants to commission a full background noise assessment of the existing noise levels. Consequently, operational noise from the site is therefore unlikely to result in any significant adverse impacts upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.

6.80 With regards noise created throughout the construction period, the Environmental Health Officer has suggested a condition to restrict the hours of construction to the hours of 8am-6pm on Monday to Friday, 8am-1pm on Saturdays and with no construction work taking place on Sundays or local or national bank holidays. I consider this to be a reasonable request and one that will protect the

167 neighbouring residents from a detrimental amount of disruption throughout the construction phase.

Glint and Glare

6.81 Glint refers to reflection produced as a direct reflection of the sun off a surface. Glare refers to continuous source of brightness, being the general reflection of a bright sky rather than a direct reflection of the sun. Solar panels are designed to absorb as much of the sun’s rays as possible as this is how they generate electricity. Solar panels are not reflective surfaces, they are matt and very efficient at absorbing light. The potential for glint and glare from a solar farm is much lower than that from man-made structures such as poly tunnels and glasshouses that are characteristic of the Borough, as well as natural features such as water and snow.

6.82 The supporting Glint and Glare assessment predicts a worse case scenario whereby the terrain and vegetation of the site is not taken into consideration. Based on this worst case scenario, reflections could be generated to ground receptors in two arcs – one to the west and one to the east. The western arc could experience glint and glare in the early mornings (05:24-07:14) and the eastern arc in the early evenings (17:08-19:02). This effect would only be possible between the 24th February to the 18th October and if the receptor is static would last no longer that a maximum of 5 minutes as the sun moves the effect would cease. Based on this assessment, glint and glare is not considered to be a significant concern and the proposal is acceptable in this respect.

CCTV – Loss of Privacy

6.83 Incorporated into the site layout are 24 CCTV posts, 13 of them are on the perimeter of the southern field and the remainder along the northern field boundary. There will be 40 cameras in total with certain posts accommodating more than one camera. The cameras are a mix of motion sensor and infra red, therefore able to pick up any security issues in the day and night. The cameras are fixed into position and will face the solar farm. The surveillance is limited to the interior corridor adjacent to the fence line. They cannot be rotated to focus towards roads, properties or the footpath. As a result the privacy of the surrounding residents will not be compromised by the proposed development.

Other concerns of neighbouring residents

6.84 The majority of concerns raised by neighbouring residents have been discussed in my report above. Other concerns include loss of view and the short timescale to comment on the proposed development. On the latter point, the Council has fulfilled its statutory duties to notify neighbouring residents in respect of the development. Loss of view is not a material planning consideration. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the proposed solar farm will not result in any adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties,

168 particular given the set back of the panels from the site boundaries and subject to the conditions as requested by the Environmental Health Officer being imposed.

Community Consultation

6.85 The UK Solar Strategy Roadmap states that support for solar PV should, inter alia, provide opportunities for local communities to influence decisions that affect them. The NPPG also says that in identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy by local planning authorities, the views of the local communities likely to be affected should be listened to.

6.86 Prior to the submission of the application consultation was carried out by the applicant with the wider community. This involved a public consultation event held within Aughton Village Hall and advertised by a leaflet drop and publication in the local press. Comments from interested parties resulted in changes to the scheme to enhance the biodiversity of the site. Whilst there has been a substantial amount of local objection to the proposals, I am satisfied that the applicant has followed the recommended procedures for community engagement. Furthermore, it should be noted that there has been a significant amount of local support for the development reflected in the letters received in connection with the application.

Summary

6.87 At the heart of the NPPF there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (Paragraph 14). Having taken into account all the above issues, I have concluded that this development constitutes a sustainable form of development.

6.88 One of the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF is to support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate and encourage the use of renewable resources. The proposal would be fully in accordance with this objective.

6.89 However, consideration must be given to the specific guidance set out in the NPPG and the UK Solar PV Strategy Roadmap. Although the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and visual harm to its openness, this must be balanced against the economic, social and environmental benefits of the development, the fact that it is temporary in nature, and although on BMV agricultural land, the proposal would allow for the continued agricultural use throughout the development period. Furthermore, in line with local and national policy, additional planting is proposed in and around the site, as a means of providing mitigation for the landscape and visual impacts and to enhance biodiversity. A community orchard will also be provided.

6.90 I am also satisfied that the proposed development will not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of local residents, or the conservation of heritage assets

169 and is acceptable in terms of highway safety, ecology and drainage subject to the imposition of conditions.

7.0 DEPARTURE APPLICATION

7.1 This proposal is a Departure from the Development Plan in that it involves a development normally inappropriate in the Green Belt. The application should, therefore, be referred to the Secretary of State if the Council is mindful to grant approval.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 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 planning permission hereby granted is for the development to be retained for a period not more than 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported to the electricity grid (First Export Date). Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority within one month of the First Export Date.

3. Not less than 12 months before the expiry of this permission, a Decommissioning Method Statement (DMS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The DMS shall include details of the removal of the panels, supports, inverters, cables, buildings and all associated structures and fencing from the site, and a timetable. The DMS shall also include details of the proposed restoration. The site shall be decommissioned in accordance with the approved DMS and timetable within 6 months of the expiry of the 25 year period of planning permission.

4. If any of the solar panels hereby permitted ceases to export electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 6 months then, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a scheme of restoration shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval for the removal of the solar panel(s) and associated equipment and the restoration of (that part of) the site to agricultural use. The approved scheme of restoration shall be fully implemented within 6 months of the date of its written approval by the Local Planning Authority.

5. The development hereby permitted shall be carried in accordance with the following drawings: Site Layout and Planting Proposals - H.0374_03-B received by the Local Planning Authority on 24/7/14.

170 Solar Panel Details - H.0374_18-A received by the Local Planning Authority on 6/6/14. Security Fence Details - H.0374_24-A received by the Local Planning Authority on 6/6/14. Transformer Detail - H.0374_23-A received by the Local Planning Authority on 6/6/14. DN0 Substation Detail - H.0374_20-A received by the Local Planning Authority on 6/6/14. Customer Substation Detail - H.0374_19-A received by the Local Planning Authority on 6/6/14. Operation and Storage Room Detail - H.0374_21-A received by the Local Planning Authority on 6/6/14. Access Track Detail - H.0374_22-A received by the Local Planning Authority on 6/6/14. CCTV Detail - H.0374_17-A received by the Local Planning Authority on 6/6/14.

6. No construction work shall take place until a scheme showing details of any security lighting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

7. No construction work shall take place until a scheme for the construction of the site accesses has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

8. No construction work shall take place until details of the passing places on Butchers Lane have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. No part of the development shall commence until the passing places have been provided in accordance with the approved details and is available for use.

9. No construction work shall take place until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include methods and details of construction including vehicle routing to the site, construction traffic parking, deliveries and the proposed traffic management measures. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details of the Construction Management Plan.

10. The proposed Mitigation and Enhancement as referred to in paragraph 4.10.10 of the Ecology chapter contained within the Environmental Statement shall be implemented in full throughout the duration of development.

11. No construction works shall take place until details of an amphibian exclusion fence around the pond have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The exclusion fence shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the installation of the solar panels.

171 12. No construction works shall take place until a landscaping scheme, including details of the hedgerow planting, wildflower grassland and community orchard and timetable for implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include locally appropriate native species. 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). 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.

13. No construction works shall take place until a management plan for the Community Orchard has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management plan shall include details of (but not limited to) maintenance responsibilities and access rights. The plan shall be implemented in full and shall operate for the lifetime of the development.

14. No construction works shall take place until details of a surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall be based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological context of the development. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus climate change critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

15. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) H463-DOC02 FRA dated June 2014.

16. No construction works shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include details of ground anchoring, ground re-profiling works, temporary storage/construction compound areas and construction hours. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

17. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, replacing or re-enacting that Order) no fixed plant or machinery, buildings, structures and erections or private ways shall be erected, extended, installed, rearranged, replaced, repaired or altered at the site without prior planning permission from the Local Planning Authority except for those works permitted by this permission.

172 Reasons

1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. In order to avoid conflict with the Local Planning Authority's policy of strict control of development in the Green Belt and to ensure compliance with Policy GN1 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. In order to avoid conflict with the Local Planning Authority's policy of strict control of development in the Green Belt and to ensure compliance with Policy GN1 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. In order to avoid conflict with the Local Planning Authority's policy of strict control of development in the Green Belt and to ensure compliance with Policy GN1 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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. 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 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.

8. 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.

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 a protected species and so 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 safeguard a protected species and so ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy EN2 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document.

173 12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. To avoid the increase of flood risk in the area 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.

16. 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.

17. In order to avoid conflict with the Local Planning Authority's policy of strict control of development in the Green Belt and to ensure compliance with Policy GN1 in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

together with Supplementary Planning Guidance and all relevant material considerations. Whilst the Local Planning Authority recognises that the proposal does not fully comply with Policy/Policies GN1 in the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD it feels that special circumstances exist, namely the significant production of renewable energy along with other economic, social and environmental benefits. It is considered that these special circumstances justify approval of the application as set out in the Officer's report. This report can be viewed or a copy provided on request to the Local Planning Authority.

174