Issue - meetings

Report of the Director of Planning and Development attached.

Resolved:

That

1.     the illustrative masterplan be refused;

2.     application A (Ref: 07/2021/00886/ORM) be refused; and

3.     application B (Ref: 07/2021/00887/ORM) be refused

Speakers: 6 objectors, Councillors Paul Foster; Karen Walton; Carol Wooldridge; Keith Martin; Matthew Trafford; and Michael Green, Mr Mark Philips (Homes England), Mr Gary Halman (Avison Young) and Mr Mike Axon (Vectos)

Address: Pickering’s Farm site

               Flag Lane

               Penwortham

               Lancashire

               PR1 9TP

Applicant: Adam Riding and Mark Philips

Agent: Miss Emma Williams

          Avison Young

          Norfolk House

          7 Norfolk Street

          Manchester

          M2 1DW

Development: Application A - Outline planning application with all matters

  reserved except for the principal means of access for a   

  residential-led mixed-use development of up to 920 dwellings 

  (Use Classes C3 and C2), a local centre including retail,

  employment and community uses (Use Classes E and Sui

  Generis), a two form entry primary school (Use Class F), green

  infrastructure, and associated infrastructure following the

  demolition of certain existing buildings

  Application B - Outline planning application with all matters

  reserved except for the principal means of access for a

  residential development of up to 180 dwellings (Use Classes

  C3 and C2), green infrastructure and associated infrastructure

The officer recommendation was proposed by Councillor James Flannery, seconded by Councillor Will Adams, and subsequently

Resolved: (unanimously)

That

1.     the illustrative masterplan be refused;

2.     application A (Ref: 07/2021/00886/ORM) be refused; and

3.     application B (Ref: 07/2021/00887/ORM) be refused

for the following reasons:

1.     It has not been demonstrated that the modelling methodology applied within the submitted Transport Assessment is acceptable. As such it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not have a severe adverse impact on the local highway network. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of para. 111 of the NPPF, Policy 17 of the Core Strategy and Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan.

2.     It has not been demonstrated that the scoping and composition of technical supporting evidence of the submitted Transport Assessment is acceptable. As such it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not have a severe adverse impact on the local highway network. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of para. 111 of the NPPF, Policy 17 of the Core Strategy and Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan.

3.     The proposed improvements to the Bee Lane bridge are not considered to be sufficient for the additional traffic, as well as increased number of pedestrians and cyclists, resulting from the development prejudicing highway safety and pedestrian safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of para. 111 of the NPPF, Policy 17 of the Core Strategy and Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan.

4.     The application fails to provide adequate certainty that the section of the Cross Borough Link Road within the site, together with the necessary physical upgrading works to the Bee Lane bridge, will be delivered. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy A2 of the South Ribble Local Plan.

5.     Policy C1 of the South Ribble Local Plan requires an agreed masterplan and design code for the comprehensive development of the site. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76