The following has been submitted to Preston City Council on behalf of Broughton Parish Council:
Former Golden Ball public house site
The Parish Council wishes to object to this application.
The Cllrs. feel that this is a new application and, as such, the previous history and applications are not material considerations in this application. They expect the Officer’s report to the Planning Committee to reflect this.
The Parish Council is fully aware that this is a brownfield site and currently waste ground, following the demolition of the restaurant. This could be a signature building meeting that meets an identified need for affordable housing, rentable housing, older persons' housing and small retail units/offices.
The Parish Council had initial discussions with the developer Midas Land Ltd in 2018 but the application did not reflect the views put forward by the council and consolidated in the BNDP.
After the 1st application was denied the Parish Council tried to maintain a dialogue with the developer but not until after the 2nd application was agreed did a further meeting occur. At this meeting, there was only one offer to put fencing on the side by Downing Court.
The Parish Council has met twice with the current applicant. Community Gateway. Once in autumn 2019. This meeting was to look at the “affordable housing” being moved from the Park House site to this site at that point the Cllrs made it clear that they were against the design proposed by Midas. A further meeting was arranged where it was made clear that no changes in the proposed design would be made as Gateway was paying a premium for the development once completed.
The Consultation for the BNDP & the recent update survey shows that the community consensus does not want the site to remain empty and welcome the over 55’s apartments in principle.
A summary of the community/parishioners comments are:
- The character of the Village centre to be destroyed by this development
- Strongly feel this development will exacerbate the current parking issues
- That the 50+ apartments on a 0.8-hectare site is overdevelopment
- That the apartments blocks will remove privacy for in neighbouring properties
- The over the development of the site will increase the issues with drainage and flooding in the village.
- They object strongly to the overdevelopment of the site, especially the apartment block heights.
- There are concerns over traffic especially when the children leave the school, the lack of green spaces and the overbeating nature of the internal aspects of the site.
Erection of three-storey retirement apartments building (Class C2), and two-storey office (Class B1) and retail units (Class A1) building, following demolition of existing restaurant building (Class A3) with associated landscaping and car parking and new access off Woodplumpton Lane
Registration date: 02/08/2018 Decision: Refusal Decision date: 15/01/2019 Applicant: Midas Land Ltd
Summary of Parish Council comments for this application
Based on the national guidance and advice from Historic England, the Institute of Historic Building Conservation & Locality, the Parish Council whilst accepting the principle of this application object to:
1) The demolition of the public house as it locally listed and part of the Broughton Neighbourhood Development Plan. This building was subsequently demolished.
2) If the public house is judged to be in an unfit state the parish council objects to plans for the replacement building as it is part of the Village vista and as such should reflect the heritage of the village centre.
3) The proposed building and the apartments on the current car park do not comply with the key objective of the Neighbourhood Plan that developments will be of an “appropriate, nature, location, scale and design, and in the case of Broughton Village is in keeping with and does not undermine the character, rural setting and environmental quality of the village”.
2no. part two/part three-storey retirement apartment buildings (Class C2) with associated landscaping and car parking and new access off Woodplumpton Lane (resubmission of 06/2018/0859)
Registration date: 28/11/2019 Decision: Approval with conditions Decision date: 16/06/2020 Applicant: Midas Land Ltd
Summary of Parish Council Comments
In principle, the use of this brownfield site complies with the Broughton Neighbourhood Development Plan (BNDP). The development of the site at 521 Garstang Road follows the refusal of the 1st planning application. (The original public house building and outhouses were demolished in 2019.)
Additional objections to the ones submitted for the refused application 1 are:
1) There has been a small reduction in part of the roof of Block 1 at the south end but an increase in the Woodplumpton Lane corner area and a small reduction in the roof height of block 2 from the refused plans. The overall height of the buildings, the overdevelopment of the site and insufficient off road parking make this development non-compliant with the BNDP
2) The classification does not reflect the stated purpose of the use of the building as Class C2 is for a care home not supported living for over 55’s. The amends plans are not in line with the requirements for either type of accommodation.
3) The amended plans do not remove any of the objections made previously regarding overdevelopment of the site, the height of the buildings and the areas quoted from the BNDP.
The Parish Council is still opposed to this planning application on these and the grounds already submitted.
2no. part two/part three-storey buildings containing 52 no. affordable apartments for people aged over 55 (Class C3) with associated landscaping, car parking and new access off Woodplumpton Lane.
Registration date: 19/10/2020
Applicant; Community Gateway Association & Aurum House
The Parish Council, whilst welcoming the use of this site for over 55’s to live independently, strongly feel that this development is not of an appropriate, nature, location, scale and design and is in keeping with the village character, its semi-rural setting and environmental quality of the village”.
Broughton Neighbourhood Development Plan (BNDP)
This development is in the heart of the Village. Small physical changes could be made even at this stage to the plans such as a reduction in size on the corner to two stories in the same way that the corner by Downing Court have been dismissed which would go some way to mitigate the issues.
30. Once a neighbourhood plan has been brought into force, the policies it contains take precedence over existing non-strategic policies in a local plan covering the neighbourhood area, where they are in conflict; unless they are superseded by strategic or non-strategic policies that are adopted subsequently.”
The Objectives 2 Development & 3 Housing of the BNDP are set out on below and clearly show that this development goes counter to the adopted plan:
“2. DEVELOPMENT to ensure that any new development is of an appropriate, nature, location, scale and design, and in the case of Broughton Village is in keeping with and does not undermine the character, rural setting and environmental quality of the village (including through the impact of associated vehicle traffic).
3. HOUSING To ensure the location, scale, and form of future housing development takes full account of local needs, and helps establish a balanced and active local community.”
Specifically, these plans are counter to these adopted policies:
“NE2 VISUAL IMPACT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT
The visual impact of new development particularly that on the edge of the defined settlement of Broughton when viewed from approaching routes should be minimised by landscape screening and tree planting.
RES2 BROUGHTON VILLAGE HOUSING MIX
Residential development of more than 10 dwellings shall provide a range of housing to meet local needs as identified in the latest objective assessment of local housing needs.
RE3 (BNP) THE CAR PARK TO THE REAR OF THE TASTE OF SPICE
Appropriate uses for site BE3, as shown on Plan 6, in support of BNDP objectives include:
- Small Scale Housing Development
- Retail (A1), Financial and Professional Services (A2), café/restaurant (A3)*
- Public Car Parking”
The 2018 BNDP does not however include the former Taste of Spice site as it was expected that the local authority would not allow its demolition as it was on the Local Heritage list this was covered by the policy BE1.
BE1 VILLAGE CENTRE
Within the area identified as a Village Centre on Plan 5 below the following uses will be encouraged and permitted at ground floor level:-
A1-A4 – Retail, Financial and Professional Services, Café/Restaurant, Public House”
Objection: BPC object to this application as it goes against the BNDP & the related national, regional and local planning policies.
Overdevelopment of the site
The site will have two 3 story blocks of apartments with balconies overlooking residential properties and gardens. The blocks are around the perimeter of the site, with one access off Woodplumpton Lane.
The 1st block fronting onto Garstang Road roofline is higher than any of the buildings in the Village, Its mass will reduce the light to the road and adjoining buildings and will cause further issues with the crossroads a notorious accident spot. The frontage is directly onto the pavement.
The 2nd block fronts onto Woodplumpton Lane and Downing Court is of the same overbearing design and is also adjoins the footpath.
The remaining area of the site is car parking and a small courtyard garden, the mature trees were removed from the site when the public house was demolished and the grassed area is to be replaced with a car park.
The PC has been informed that “reduction to two-storey is not possible as the developers wish to maximise the use of the site”. Gateway is paying a premium for the site as the developers are providing “spacious flats, accessible showers, communal rooms, additional lifts and an office.” Gateway are going to purchase the development out-right including the freehold once completed.
Objection: the current plans are overdevelopment of the site 0.8 hectares with 52 apartments (this number is different in several of the documents on the portal) and go against the BNDP and the related national, regional and local planning policies.
This development is out of place in the core of a Village, where none of the surrounding or other properties in the Village are of this height.
The design is not in keeping or sympathetic to its setting and is similar to apartment developments in many cities with a view to optimising the space usage in line with city centre polices.
A number of the 3rd-floor apartments will not have a direct view only roof lights. A number of local authorities have produced guidance on design for independent living as has the DHCLG. Such as: Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England, November 2011, by the Department for Communities and Local Government & Housing our Ageing Population: Panel for Innovation (HAPPI). This development does not seem to have looked at this and other guidance.
The references below in the NPPF 2018 & BNDP are not demonstrated by the design of this development.
BROUGHTON VILLAGE HOUSING DESIGN (BNDP)
“8.5.19 appropriate good design helps new development to foster a locally distinctive area. In support of the objectives and vision of this neighbourhood plan. There are established design policies in the development plan (listed below) and adopted SPD, the application of which will be crucially important in meeting plan objectives and in delivering the plan vision
- Central Lancashire Core Strategy Policy 17 – Design of New Buildings
- Preston Local Plan Policy EN9 – Design of New Development
- Central Lancashire Core Strategy Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) “
Paragraph 127 requires planning decisions to ensure that developments:
- Will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;
- Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping;
- Are sympathetic to local character and history while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities);
- Establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit;
- Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development and support local facilities and transport networks; and
- Create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being”.
Paragraph 131 requires great weight to be given to outstanding or innovative design with high levels of sustainability or where they help raise the standard of design more generally in an area.
Paragraph 122. Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account: a) the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it; b) local market conditions and viability; c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use; d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and e) the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places”
Objection: This development does not meet the criteria in these policy documents.
HOUSING DENSITY (BNDP)
50-52 apartments on a 0.8-hectare site in a semi-rural setting are overdevelopment of the site’
“8.5.20 Core Strategy Policy 5 “Housing Density” states densities should reflect those of the local area and make efficient use of land
8.2.21 relatively low density single or 2-storey housing, in a well-landscaped setting, will normally help ensure that development is not to the detriment of the character and appearance of the village and is not unduly prominent in the wider landscape”
Objection: This development does not meet the criteria in these policy documents.
Class of use
The application 06/2019/1347 was granted with an incorrect class as pointed out in the PC & other comments on that application, The plans did not show the correct facilities for a C2 nursing home and as such should not have been granted as C2.
Gateway has had to submit this application to rectify this as if Midas had submitted a change to class with the application 06/2019/1347 they would have had to pay for the resubmission.
Gateway state that the change of classification was a condition of their purchase from Midas to bring it into line with the proposed over 55’s Independent living.
They concede that this widens the usage as C3 and confirmed that if in future a change to another usage under the subcategories was proposed a change of usage application would need to be made to PCC.
Objection: BPC objects to this development unless a specific condition is in place that states that the class cannot be changed unless an application is made to PCC
The Village has documented major issues with village parking and the additional burden on the community with this development due to the inadequate parking spaces on the development will exacerbate these issues.
These issued have been under discussion with LCC for a number of years and as yet no solutions have been reached.
On this site, there is sufficient parking (42 spaces) for residents, none for visitors and staff. This development during construction will exacerbate this situation. If granted there must be a condition that the developers park on the site and do not have deliveries between 8 am – 8.45 am & 2.30 -3.15 pm during the high school arrival and departures times.
Objection: Insufficient parking on site will exacerbate the local parking issues and increase the safety risks for residents and high school children.
n.b. There is an issue for the residents of 3 properties on Garstang Road who currently park on the site and have done so for a number of years. The original plans were going to allow this to continue, Gateway state that this is not under consideration. This will only add to the Village parking problems.
The PC understands that Gateway has a policy of making sure all their clients have their own private space, which is commendable. However, this does not detract from the issue of balconies overlooking peoples’ houses and gardens. The three storeys mean that properties in all directions will be affected.
The small outside communal area does not allow for any activity for the residents and overlooks the car park and internal road.
Objection: the reduction in privacy and loss of light in neighbouring properties
n.b. At the meeting between local residents, Cllrs & Midas it was agreed that higher fencing would be installed on the West and south sides by Downing Court the plans only show this for the west side. Gateway has agreed to look into this and if granted there must be a condition.