Agenda item

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 masterplan has not been formally agreed by South Ribble Council and the version submitted with the two applications does not meet the policy requirements.

6.     Policy C1 of the South Ribble Local Plan requires the submission of a phasing and infrastructure delivery schedule and an agreed programme of implementation. The submitted documentation provides insufficient detail on how the site will be delivered and no detailed phasing plan has been submitted and no programme of implementation has been agreed. Therefore, the scheme is contrary to Policy C1.

7.     Policy A2 of the South Ribble Local Plan seeks to ensure delivery of the Cross Borough Link Road through the major development site at Pickering’s Farm. The two applications together with the Masterplan do not provide a firm commitment for the delivery of this key piece of infrastructure necessary to support the scale of development proposed. The scheme is therefore contrary to Policy A2.

8.     Inadequate information has been provided to address air quality impacts and insufficient mitigation has been identified to make the development acceptable. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraphs 185 and 186 of the NPPF and Policy 30 of the Core Strategy.

9.     The proposals will generate additional demand for sporting provision, and it is not clear how this would be addressed in the current planning applications. Nor is it clear how the concept of active design would be achieved in the scheme to deliver an active, healthy community and is therefore contrary to Policies G10 and G11 in the South Ribble Local Plan and Paragraph 100 of the NPPF.

10.Due to the lack of an agreed Masterplan and commitment to providing the cross borough link road, the proposals do not follow the ‘proper planning approach’ or represent good planning for the area as required by the NPPF paragraphs 126 and 132.

11.No viability evidence has been submitted to enable an assessment of whether necessary infrastructure can be provided to support this important housing land allocation. As such the proposals are contrary to Policies A1 and C1 in the South Ribble Local Plan.