Community Association for the Protection of Wrea GreenCAPOW OBJECTIVES: Aims, Objectives and Operation of CAPOW CAPOW STRUCTURE: Here CAPOW INCIDENT REPORTING: Here PLANNING GUIDANCE: Planning Guidance v8 CAPOW UPDATES:
CAPOW 1.1 FBC Email Address for Objection Letters CAPOW UPDATE 40.
For general information the email address to which ANY objection letters must be sent is email@example.com. All emails/letters should quote the application number and address of the application. 1.2 Our membership now stands at 114 (up 4 this month, and welcome to new members!). However, there are now 4 houses for sale in close proximity to the Story Homes site! Looks like those, who came to Wrea Green for the peace and quiet, realise that’s leaving too. There is no charge to members. Please encourage new members to join CAPOW, yourself. All we require is an email address and confirmation of a postal address (to confirm residence in Wrea Green). Although we have links to and provide assistance in other areas of the Fylde, and beyond, this is not our PRIMARY aim. Coverage for Wrea Green ALWAYS takes precedence.
2 2 The Villa (No SHLAA reference as this is a Commercial Development) 2.1 FBC Planning advises that corrective action on Condition breaches is still outstanding (9 October). In the absence of an update, on 10 November we requested that FBC Planning provide this. No reply was received so we presume that no action has been taken. An update was re-requested on 13 December and FBC Planning confirms that there are some technical issues with the new system, so this remains outstanding. A further reminder received a response that this is known to be outstanding. Yet a further reminder on 4 April went unanswered, leaving an assumption nothing has been done, now 6 months after this matter was re-highlighted! The main matters outstanding are – a) Failure to install SuDs at the upper level (as required by UU/EA) to prevent flooding on Moss Side Lane. b) Failure to re-landscape properly an area previously used as an unapproved car park. c) Introduction of an unapproved car park, on a green paddock. d) Failure to submit a Travel Plan to reduce Private Car use. 3 Richmond Avenue – 54 properties (SHLAA reference WG17) 3.1 Regarding the planting of the ditch, some work has been done but it would appear it is not to the extent or standard originally proposed. On 1 December, CAPOW asked the Development Manager of FBC to review the position and confirm that the construction of the ditch and planting have been adequately undertaken and are suitable for their intended use – to stop excess water from the site flooding into gardens of pre-existing residents in Richmond and Westbourne Avenues. An update from FBC was requested on 13 December and we were advised that the Enforcement officer had visited the site but was now on holiday so his report was awaited. A request for an update was issued on 5 January, despite a further reminder, a mere acknowledgement that it is known to be outstanding has been received. 3.2 These matters were raised by to Parish Councillors with the LCC Flood Risk Manager, following the appearance of the ditch at the Fieldings on one of the LCC demonstration boards (early March). LCC Flood Risk Unit is to review the position, so currently no further reminders are being issued to FBC.
3 4 Land East of Willow Drive Reserved Matters(Part of SHLAA reference WG14) Applications 16/0431 and 16/0909 4.1 Problems with early arriving heavy lorries restarted at 7.10am on 6 March, there were 3 arriving before 8am. Photos were supplied to FBC and we are assured that this will AGAIN be taken up with Story Homes. 4.2 On 13 and 14 March a further early arrival and up to 5 queuing lorries AGAIN caused problems for residents, as did a low loader with digging equipment which STILL reversed onto the site, blocking Willow Drive for 15 minutes as it manoeuvred. This latter vehicle had to drive on the footpath and damaged the grass in the Open Space and a lamp post in Willow Drive during attempts to get into/out of the site. These matters were taken up with both FBC and the Police by a concerned resident. 4.3 On 21 March, a meeting was convened on-site between FBC Planning, Village Elected officials, residents (including CAPOW) to discuss the issues arising in an attempt to eradicate future problems. A note was taken of the information provided/promises made at this meeting for future use. We were advised to continue to report problems with this site to Andrew Stell, Development Manager at FBC. We understand that lorries will have to continue to back into the site until a turned circle can be built, promised to be before the end of May (although disproved on 5 April, see para 4.4 below). Reversing into the site is NOT as indicated in the Construction Plan! 4.4 Notwithstanding the agreement at the meeting on 21 March, lorries continued to block Willow Drive and some driveways and the footpath on both sides of the road fairly regularly. Additionally the water was turned off YET again, apparently to fix another leak at the site entrance. Some lorries are too large to enter the site so unload on Willow Drive, contrary to the draft Construction Plan. It is VERY clear that Story Homes are ignoring the draft Construction Plan whenever it is expedient to do so. Needless to say all these matters have been reported to FBC, but we are NOT holding our breath that there will be any sustained change! Again on 5 and 6 April a large concrete mixer lorry and a lorry loaded with breeze blocks arrived at 7.35 and 7.15 respectively. The former drove straight into the site without reversing in, which is an improvement.
4 4.5 The failure of Story Homes to maintain the ditch to the rear of 17 and 19 to the east of Willow Drive is now causing waterlogging in existing gardens. A resident has taken up this matter with FBC, particularly in view of the promise that this WOULD be attended to – but has not been. Additionally the northern end of this ditch (behind 3-9 Willow Drive), which is not within the Story Homes site is in need of maintenance to clear growth. This was referred to the Parish Clerk to get in touch with the owner in order that action should be taken. A failure is likely to cause a significant accumulation of surface water in BOTH parts of this ditch. 5. 54 Bryning Lane (SHLAA Reference WG 20) 5.1 Other than to refer outstanding responses from LCC Highways to the Parish Clerk for action (which he has taken), there is nothing further to report. Any comments would affect 16/1028 and 17/0005 and, as you can read below, have done. These matters cover the provision of speed data, the proposed increased speed limit in this area, traffic calming measures proposed and positioning, the size of the visibility splay, obstructive parking within sight lines and the serious deterioration of the grass verge, caused by parking. 6 Application 16/1028 Land off the end of Bryning Avenue with access through land next to 38 Bryning Lane for 41 dwellings (SHLAA reference WG05/15). 6.1 LCC Highways do not recommend approval for a number of reasons (30.03.17). The two main reasons are inadequate visibility splay and the number of entrances/exits onto Bryning Lane in the vicinity, linked with the number of vehicle movements in the application documentation being underestimated.
5 7 Application 17/0005 Land at 53 Bryning Lane (part of SHLAA reference WG18). 7.1 As with Application 16/1028 LCC Highways do NOT recommend approval mainly based on the number of accesses/egresses in this area of Bryning Lane. 8 Application 17/0138 land to the rear of 91 Ribby Road (No SHLAA reference) 8.1 On 6 March, the Parish Council unanimously agreed to recommend refusal to FBC and expressed concern that the 8 true bungalows had been amended to 4 bedroomed 2 storey dormer bungalows. We understand that there has been interest shown in proposed properties on this site but “most interest” is in single storey properties. 9 Application - 17/0146 48 houses west of the Brooklands (SHLAA reference WG16) 9.1 On 6 March, the Parish Council unanimously agreed to recommend refusal to FBC. On 28 March, CPRE added their voice to objections to this site for a number of reasons. UU have expressed some concerns about the pipe which crosses the site. 10 Fylde Borough Council Emerging Plan 2011 to 2032 (Examination 28/29 March) 10.1 On speaking on the phone to the Examination Co-ordinator, I was advised that it is only those who want to OBJECT to the Plan who can speak at the Examination. I mainly wanted to offer my support, with explanations, to FBC who will have to answer issues raised regarding “no new housing” in Wrea Green. As a consequence, I could only, and did, offer my assistance to the FBC Team in this respect. This was deemed inappropriate due to the existing size of the FBC Team, but this may change for Stage 2 (see below). 10.2 Stage 1 comprised of two long days in a Conference Room at the Dalmeny Hotel. Only those who had submitted written objections could speak – although there were plenty of observers. It was Day 2 before I needed to say anything, having taken my appointed place at the “Conference Table”. I knew that some developers were proposing significant OVERALL additional housing so that “the 30% affordable requirement” would nearer match the supposed “affordable housing” need, said to be 249 per annum. This would be an extra 322 market houses pa. In answer to my suggestion for an alternative solution (by FBC borrowing to fund the REAL need - which would then have come down to a more
6 realistic figure, I am sure), I was told I had opened a can of worms and that the Government had certain policies in place (not specified) by the Inspector. I saw, on the News, a day later, the same suggestion/recommendation! The second issue I raised related to the fact that more site approvals did NOT mean more houses. Due of the lack of a workforce to complete existing sites, more approvals merely extended the existing site completion times, through manpower dilution. This was merely noted (as I expected). 10.3 At the end of the second day at the summing up, the Inspector reconfirmed her need to evaluate the Wyre BC allegation that Fylde BC had not worked adequately within the “duty to co-operate” (which took up most of the morning of Day 1). Wyre have an allocation shortfall of at least 1400 houses over the plan period, are constrained by Highways issues and were/are looking for FBC to allocate sites within Fylde Borough to assist. The Inspector considered that if this failed then the WHOLE plan had failed, would need to be re-written and re-submitted. She indicated that she would have her decision “within a few days”, but currently needed to consider the matter further based on the evidence provided. This decision does not yet appear to be available. 10.4 If the Inspector DOES find that FBC had done their best to co-operate with Wyre, then she would write to FBC setting out what additional work had to be undertaken by FBC, about other elements to be considered prior to Stage 2 and in relation to the methodologies used and the results. 10.5 Once FBC have had time to deal with and reply to those issues mentioned in 10.4 above, Stage 2 will be timetabled (May or later) - but even Stage 2 might need to be sub-divided. Stage 2 will include matters such as the adequacy of the housing need/supply proposed by FBC and the requests by individual developers to submit their case for each site which they want included. Of course the latter depends on the acceptance, or not, of the proposed housing numbers, but it was clear from Day 2 that Developers have their sights aimed at Wrea Green, Wesham and Elswick. It was also clear that neither the Inspector nor developers could find the reasons behind the housing allocations for towns and villages in the current plan (Wrea Green – is ZERO to 2032). I imagine that this is where we will have a fight on our hands so I need to ensure that we have sufficient written submissions for Stage 2 to back up our case(s). Stage 2 will also cover the method of “housing need” calculation (ie Liverpool or Sedgfield), which have differing methods of allocating the building backlog. 11 Housing Supply 11.1 The current housing supply stands at 5.58 years (also confirmed at the Examination) so above the all important 5 years required by the NPPF.
7 However developers will have to begin work on Queensway and Whydyke Farm to keep up with this position. Last time I saw neither had been commenced! This does bode well for the 4 currently outstanding applications in Wrea Green, although each does have other issues too. However this does depend on the outcome of the Examination of the Local Plan Stage 2. It was raised by both the Inspector and Developers in Stage 1 of the Local Plan Examination, as was the method of calculation and the accuracy of homes expected to completed within 5 years. 12 Other Matters 12.1 The tree preservation order along Moss Side Lane, on the refused M&M application site, objected to by the potential developers, has been confirmed and is now permanently in place. Summary of Outstanding/Ongoing Matters At DMC level – Application 16/1028 for 41 houses, west of Bryning Lane (expected to be before the DMC in May 2017). Application 17/0005 land Adjacent to 53 Bryning Lane (expected to be before the DMC in May 2017). Application 17/0138 land behind 91 Ribby Road (not expected to be before the DMC until May 2017 or later) Application 17/0146 land west of The Brooklands (not expected to be before the DMC until May 2017 or later). Awaited/Expected – None known Other Issues – Monitoring of compliance with Construction Plan Conditions and other matters at Richmond Avenue, North View Farm and off Willow Drive (all on going), to which 54 Bryning Lane will be added in due course. John Rowson Chairman of the Community Association for the Protection of Wrea Green 9
For general information the email address to which ANY objection letters must be sent is firstname.lastname@example.org. All emails/letters should quote the application number and address of the application. 1.2 Following interviews by Radio Lancashire with a number of residents and myself on 22 February regarding excessive development in the Village, it has been agreed that the BBC Radio reporter will now be added to the CAPOW distribution list. The edited interviews were broadcast on Tuesday 28 February. Many thanks go to the Chairman of the Parish Council, John Maskell, for setting this up. 2 The Villa (No SHLAA reference as this is a Commercial Development) 2.1 FBC Planning advises that corrective action on Condition breaches is still outstanding (9 October). In the absence of an update, on 10 November we requested that FBC Planning provide this. No reply was received so we
2 presume that no action has been taken. An update was re-requested on 13 December and FBC Planning confirms that there are some technical issues with the new system, so this remains outstanding. A further reminder received a response that this is known to be outstanding. 3 Richmond Avenue – 54 properties (SHLAA reference WG17) 3.1 Regarding the planting of the ditch, some work has been done but it would appear it is not to the extent or standard originally proposed. On 1 December, CAPOW asked the Development Manager of FBC to review the position and confirm that the construction of the ditch and planting have been adequately undertaken and are suitable for their intended use – to stop excess water from the site flooding into gardens of pre-existing residents in Richmond and Westbourne Avenues. An update from FBC was requested on 13 December and we are advised that the Enforcement officer has visited the site but is now on holiday so his report is awaited. A request for an update was issued on 5 January, despite a further reminder, a mere acknowledgement that it is known to be outstanding has been received. 4 Land East of Willow Drive Reserved Matters(Part of SHLAA reference WG14) Applications 16/0431 and 16/0909 4.1 Problems concerning early arrival of LARGE delivery lorries, which also blocked residents driveways, continued. We asked FBC to get stronger in this matter (it seems a fine is NOW appropriate, given the number of times this has occurred over just a few weeks). 4.2 The installing of new utilities to the site has caused some major temporary local blocked roads. This was compounded on 16/17 February with a fractured water main at the site entrance, which was fixed and re-fractured the next time a heavy lorry went over it. This caused a complete loss of mains water to a considerable number of houses from 11.30 on 17 February until 21.45 and for others from 16.40 to 21.45 as UU turned off the water without notice. An on-site pipe was fractured on 20 February and the water was off again for another 3 hours. We didn’t ask for this development but are suffering the consequences!!!! Inquiries of Story Homes, as to the cause, had to be re-directed to United Utilities (UU) since Story Homes refused to provide any comments. UU have provided a report stating that Story Homes had accepted FULL responsibility and any compensation should be sought from Story Homes. NO apology nor ANY offer of compensation had been received from Story Homes 7 days after the last “cut off”(note this had nothing to do with the work that Aptus Utilities have been undertaking). A copy of the UU report was sent to Story Homes on 23 February, who also have to bear the UU repair costs, asking for their comments but no reply was received.
3 In the meantime Story Homes were off holding Marketing Meetings with the Public at Ribby Hall!!!!!!!! Some of the prices are £569,995 for a 5 bed detached and £244,995 for a 3 bed semi (that’s £45,000 more than a fully equipped/carpeted new 3 bed semi on Magnolia Point), so much for affordability! 4.3 Early deliveries, in breach of the Construction Plan, and road blocking were YET AGAIN reported to FBC Planning on 24 February and driveway obstructions on 27 February and 28 February. 4.4 We have been advised that the installation of new Utilities for the development site will NOT take the two weeks which the dropped off neighbour letter said. This will be two weeks per street, so 6 weeks. However even that is weather dependent. Willow Drive will take at least 2 ½ weeks due to weather conditions. 5. 54 Bryning Lane (SHLAA Reference WG 20) The sewage issues raised have yet to receive ANY response from UU. LCC Highways have responded regarding 16/1028 and 17/0005 but not to the issues surrounding 16/0156, which have subsequently re-raised with LCC Highways District Lead Officer. The promised contact from one of his officers ensued, with the promise of a further follow up next week. The latter did NOT happen and a reminder was sent on 17 February. 6 Application 16/1028 Land off the end of Bryning Avenue with access through land next to 38 Bryning Lane for 41 dwellings (SHLAA reference WG05/15). 6.1 FBC Housing dislikes the clustering of affordable houses at the north end of the site. LCC Flood Risk “have no objections” but then proceeds to list 3 Conditions they require. Additionally they require no development within 8 metres of an open watercourse, which the Site plan indicates there WILL be (in fact, over it in one place!). 6.2 On 8 February the Parish Council unanimously agreed to recommend refusal. 7 Application 17/0005 Land at 53 Bryning Lane (part of SHLAA reference WG18). 7.1 FBC Housing comment of the lack of affordable housing provision and LCC Flood Risk say this application should be refused as it has no proper Flood Risk Analysis. As with 6.2 above, the Parish Council unanimously recommended refusal of this application.
4 7.2 On 17 February, a query was raised with a Manager of UU. UU made no comment in their Consultee reply regarding proposals to use a deteriorating and “end of life” 6” pitch fibre sewage pipe, which runs under the front gardens of 44-52 Bryning Lane, into which to connect the developers 9” pipe. This is both a nonsense and contrary to UU’s previous assurances (and in fact would require individual householder’s permission – which will not be forthcoming). AGAIN it is left to CAPOW (thanks, Eric) to do the job of the paid “Utilities Experts”!!! 8 New Application 17/0138 land to the rear of 91 Ribby Road (No SHLAA reference) 8.1 This application follows application 16/0227, which consisted of 9 true bungalows. That application was for quality downsizing true bungalows. However THIS application is for eight 4 bedroomed chalet bungalows and does NOT comply with Condition 4 of 16/0227 for single storey dwellings, but then the landowner has now changed. 8.2 Since the need is for quality true bungalows – not chalet bungalows which are available on other development sites in the Village, albeit smaller properties, and the potential to change the character of this area, CAPOW objected to this application (23 February). Additionally downsizing to a 4 bedroomed property is hardly downsizing! The FBC Development Manager said at the DMC, when 16/0227 was approved, he would only recommend approval for single storey dwellings, which these are NOT. 8.3 This application is on the Parish Council Agenda for 6 March at the Institute from 7.30. Please come along and make your opinions known so these can be taken into account. 9 New Application - 17/0146 48 houses west of the Brooklands (SHLAA reference WG16) 9.1 We were pre-advised that this application has been received and was registered on 23 February. So much for the pre-application consultation! The CAPOW Objection letter was submitted on 26 February. The key issues raised were – a) Lack of sustainability, including potential to overwhelm Village Facilities and infrastructure. b)Poor road width and road safety issues both in The Brooklands and onto Dubside – given the measured and reported 85 percentile speed of vehicles passing the top of The Brooklands.
5 c) Lack of Land Classification, use of agricultural land, outside the Settlement Area. d) Spoiling on the only quiet and rural part of the Village left and alongside a Public Right of Way. e) Adding even more to Wrea Brook flows leading to the potential for flooding. f) Lack of Community Need (in the main, as far as identifiable) for the type of properties proposed. g) Poor quality and rushed public consultation, with incomplete summarisation and only emailed responses. 9.2 As with 8.3, this application is on the Parish Council Agenda for 6 March at the Institute from 7.30. Please come along and make your opinions known so these can be taken into account. 10 Fylde Borough Council Emerging Plan 2011 to 2032 10.1 The Hearing for the review of the Local Plan is to commence on 27 March. The Inquiry Inspector has already asked FBC for supporting evidence for a number of the proposals. You can keep up to date with matters by following this link - http://www.fylde.gov.uk/council/planning-policy--localplan-/local-development-framework/www-fylde-gov-uk-examination/. The FBC response to the preliminary questions raised by the Inspector reviewing the Local Plan can be found through the same web-link. It runs to 19 pages so has not been reproduced here. 10.2 There are 71 “Representors” on the Inquiry list, of which CAPOW is one. Only two Parish/Town councils are so registered and neither is Ribby with Wrea Parish Council. However the issued Local Plan showed NO intended development in Wrea Green from now until 2032. However, it is most likely we will have to defend against Developers proposals (see para 10.1 in CAPOW Update 36 issued in 4 December) in support of FBC. Needless to say, there are numerous developers listed, many of which have their sights on Wrea Green (just for profit)! Almost all developers are using professional consultants to represent them. 11 Flooding 11.1 A resident reminded LCC on 22 November that their report on drainage issues in Ribby Road has been outstanding since that date. There still appear to be two blockages in a drainage culvert on private land which have NOT been attended to and LCC have still to jet out the previously blocked culvert caused by the Ribby Road blockage. We are not currently aware of any change.
6 11.2 Paul Rigby, our County Councillor, advised at the last PC Meeting that, for the first time in 36 years, the Environment Agency have cleaned vegetation from Main Drain, Liggard Brook and Wrea Brook and for Wrea Brook have cleared the tidal flaps in Dock Road. For Wrea Green purposes, this SHOULD allow water to flow more freely down Wrea Brook provided that there are no bottlenecks upstream. However there are such bottlenecks - under Station Road and at Ricksby Grange. We will just have to see how these bottlenecks cope during a prolonged downpour (photos required, please). 12 White Paper on “Broken Housing Market” 12.1 On behalf of CAPOW and the Neighbourhood Plan Committee, I have responded to the Consultation on this White Paper. The key matters (and this note covers only a very small part of the 36 pages of questions/notes) raised the following – a) Housing needed HAS to be by type and location, so that the right type of housing is built in the right place (also part of the interviews mentioned in 1.2). b) Failure of Developers, Local Planning Authorities and Appeal Inspectors to adhere to the NPPF definition of sustainability and the need to clarify the full implications of sustainability. The White Paper says that sustainability needs to be spelt out further. Coincidentally (or not), we understand the FBC Planning have been requested to provide their own definition of sustainability (per Frank Andrews at the 8 February PC Meeting). Our response also covered the provision of housing as required by the Fylde – being said to be 370 units pa of which 249 are “affordable”, mainly required in Urban Areas, and how approved development is NOT following this pattern by ANY means. c) That “performing Local Planning Authorities” (LPAs) should not have to take up the shortfalls in LPA areas where failures are evident (judging by the Inquiry Inspector’s queries this is likely to be an issue for Fylde in respect of Wyre under allocation!). d) The overwhelming of and destruction of “small communities” by excessive development. e) In conjunction with d) the total lack of infrastructure improvements to support even currently approved development. f) Agreement with the shorting of approval time for a developer to START on a site (reduced to 2 years from 3). However this does not mean houses
7 will be completed more quickly – a point made. Failure to develop through land-banking. g) Failure by Statutory Consultees to identify existing problems before “approving” a site – and the use of Conditions to try and resolve issues. h) The need to maintain compliance with noise reduction processes and other matters per the Construction Plan during the development of a site. i) Agreement with the proposal to encourage multi-builder construction sharing on larger sites to ensure faster delivery. Summary of Outstanding/Ongoing Matters At DMC level – Application 16/1028 for 41 houses, west of Bryning Lane (not expected to be before the DMC until March or April). Application 17/0005 land Adjacent to 53 Bryning Lane (not expected to be before the DMC until April 2017). Application 17/0138 land behind 91 Ribby Road (not expected to be before the DMC before May 2017) Application 17/0146 land west of Brooklands Avenue (not expected to be before the DMC until May 2017). Awaited/Expected – None known Other Issues – Monitoring of compliance with Construction Plan Conditions and other matters at Richmond Avenue, North View Farm and off Willow Drive (all on going), to which 54 Bryning Lane will be added, once a Construction Plan is confirmed and work starts. Information relating to these is shown above. John Rowson Chairman of the Community Association for the Protection of Wrea Green 5 April 2017