CAPOW

Community Association for the Protection of Wrea Green

CAPOW 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
Community Association for the Protection of Wrea Green Together we are Stronger!

Update No 43 9 July – 11 August 2017

Community Association for the Protection of Wrea Green Together we are Stronger!   Update No 43 3 June – 9 July  2017   The next issue is due to be emailed on 11 August 2017   CAPOW   1.1     FBC  Email Address for Objection Letters   For general information the email address to which ANY objection letters must be sent is planning@fylde.gov.uk. All emails/letters should quote the application number and address of the application.   1.2       Anyone wishing to attend the DMC for an application hearing can do so, subject to the spaces available. If you wish to speak against an application you can do so, for a maximum of 3 minutes, but you MUST register to do so three days in advance of the DMC. Instructions are on the FBC Planning website but a link is https://www.fylde.gov.uk/forms/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=473   1.3       There was a move, by FBC, to restrict the number of speakers regarding any one application at the DMC to five, of which one had to be from the Parish Council (if the officers’ recommendation differs from that of the Parish Council). Speakers were to be prioritised merely on the basis of time of registration (i.e. the first 5 registered speakers only were to be permitted to speak). This was caused mainly by repetitive content of speeches and the length of time it has been taking the DMC to work through the Agenda of applications, which appears to be longer than other local councils.   In Wrea Green we have been fortunate in that it is usual for a Parish Councillor to speak against an application, if appropriate, and speeches are generally coordinated to reduce duplication of coverage, whilst still accentuating key issues. This has arisen from past experience because of the time restrictions for individual speeches and to ensure that there is full coverage. It has become a natural progression for such coordination, together with a linking/order of speeches.   However, there was general concern regarding the reduction in resident’s democratic rights and this restriction has now been deferred (but only deferred!). There was additional overall concern that Parishes had not been consulted on this matter prior to the intended agreement to implement the restriction and revisions after the15 June Audit and Standards Committee meeting. There is a forum, between the Borough and Parish Councils which would have made such consultation appropriate and simple. This particular aspect goes against national proposals for Parish Councils to have a greater say in Planning Applications, including the right to challenge Borough/District decisions.   1.4       Another new member joined CAPOW this month and our numbers are now 116. We are always sorry to see members leave, so far only because of re-location away from Wrea Green. The registration for such members is only removed on request.   2          The Villa (No SHLAA reference as this is a Commercial Development)   2.1       FBC Planning advised that corrective action on Condition breaches is still outstanding in October 2016. FBC Planning confirmed that there were some technical issues with the new system but further reminders have since gone unanswered. It is now nearly 8 months since the issues were re-raised. We are aware of enforcement concerns at a council in another part of the country where the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) became involved. The LGO required Enforcement Procedures to be significantly improved and brought up to date.   3          Land East of Willow Drive Reserved Matters – 86 properties (Part of SHLAA reference WG14) Applications 16/0431 and 16/0909   3.1       CAPOW wrote to UU to obtain the reason for the problems with cutting off water supplies to 100 houses AND the absence of any pre-warning to most residents. We have received written confirmation that the fault was caused by Story Homes. However we consider that the further cut-offs may not be from the same cause and have asked for this to be reviewed by UU. A telephone reminder was given on 6 July.   3.2       Issues with Story Homes maintaining their boundary hedges, adjoining residents’ properties to the east of Willow Drive and the drainage ditch have STILL not been addressed or resolved. This led to a further resident reminder to FBC Planning concerning adherence to Planning Conditions on 21 May and again in June. Currently Story Homes are denying ANY responsibility!   3.3       We have again had to remind FBC that the Conditions relating to covering of “spoil” in lorries is not being adhered to, since then matters have improved somewhat. This leads to more clods of mud on the road which is not being cleaned well enough. FBC advise that both matters will be taken up with Story Homes although there has since been a further complaint from a resident about the poor standard of road cleaning, and supported by additional photographs from CAPOW. We are advised that this will AGAIN be taken up with Story Homes and that the overall position is monitored regularly by the Enforcement Officer anyway – alongside his monitoring of the MANY building sites on the Fylde.   3.4       At a meeting with Story Homes earlier this year we were advised that 10 loads a day would be the usual standard. On 16 June and 19 June, this was about 10 loads per hour – all observed on the 16 June were uncovered and over half of those observed on 19 June STILL remained uncovered.   4          54 Bryning Lane – 36 properties (SHLAA Reference WG 20)   4.1       No updated information available.   5          Application 16/1028 Land off the end of Bryning Avenue with access through land next to 38 Bryning Lane for 41 properties (SHLAA reference WG05/15).   5.1       We understand, from Frank Andrews, that this application is likely to be decided on 26 July, not June as originally anticipated.   6          Application 17/0005 Land at 53 Bryning Lane – 20 properties (part of SHLAA reference WG18).   6.1       No additional information but we are aware the FBC Planning are in touch with the Planning Inspectorate with a view to refusing both the application and the appeal, due to the planning history of this site.   7          Application 17/0138 land to the rear of 91 Ribby Road – 8 properties (No SHLAA reference)   7.1       A number of revised hard and soft landscaping plans were added to the FBC website on 13 June. Additionally comments were posted from the Landscape Architect at FBC indicating that he/she was against the current proposals, due to the change in character of the area as a result of “increase in size” (presumably taller) properties. However, this application was STILL recommended for approval at the DMC on 28 June. I was not able to attend the DMC as I was at the Local Plan Examination. However I was pleased that the Chairman of the Parish Council was permitted to read both my speech and to give his own. Nevertheless, despite prior assurances that only single storey properties were to be permitted, this application was approved by the DMC.   8          Application - 17/0146 48 houses west of the Brooklands – 48 properties (SHLAA reference WG16)   8.1       No new information regarding this site, except that it was NOT on the June DMC Agenda as anticipated. The Lead Flood Authority has now responded, probably due to prompting by a resident. However this Authority has no objections subject to some fairly standard conditions but does reiterate Network Rail’s comments.   9          Appeal against Refused Planning Permission – 16/0619 Moss Side Lane (SHLAA reference 15a)   9.1       We were advised on 3 July that MacTaggart & Mickel Homes have launched an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for this site. The appeal seems very opportunist since it uses the latest 5 year housing supply figures, which resulted from Stage 1 of the Local Plan Examination and also the shortfall which was only announced on 28 June (see para 10.5 below). We wait to hear how this will be handled by the Planning Inspectorate. With another appeal, 3 applications in the pipeline and a probable Stage 3 Hearing to the Local Plan, we are yet unsure whether there will be time to apply for and attend any hearing under “Rule 6” status. Hence, we may just apply to speak at the Hearing unless, of course, it is a written hearing. All prior documents are carried forward to any Hearing, but may need some updating. The FBC reasons for refusal should give adequate coverage to support their case, unlike that for Willows Edge.   10        Fylde Borough Council Emerging Plan 2011 to 2032 - Examination by Planning Inspector – Stage 2.   10.1    The CAPOW submission to the Local Plan Examination was issued and acknowledged on 9 June (3 days ahead of the close date). This submission covered the potential effects of fracking, the need for an Area of Separation and support for FBC in defining the types of property to be approved to meet Community Need. As mentioned in Update 42, this was deliberately restricted to matters other than additional/omission sites which were not to be handled under Stage 2. However a wider paper covering potential additional sites has already been drafted for later use, if necessary. The Examiner received about 80 responses to her Stage 2 “MIQ’s”. None of these appear to affect Wrea Green directly. However the Examiner did indicate her intention to review the position regarding Wrea Green and Elswick on the final day (28 June) of the Examination. On 28 June, for Wrea Green, this merely hinged on a developer challenging the bus service as used to place Wrea Green as a Tier 1 Village. As there is no higher tier, this is immaterial. Nevertheless, the same developer challenged why Wrea Green was not a Local Service Centre as it had scored higher than Warton and Freckleton, which is MOST odd. The Examiner requested that the Tiering allocations should be brought up to date. She then would see the tiering parameters, the revised tiers allocated AND subsequently any residents consultation comments (see 10.4 and para 4 in the letter within 10.6 below).   10.2    In response to one of the Examiners questions about targets for development, the below was given as an answer by FBC. This could be useful to have for the future.   “ The targets are ‘targets’ they are not ceilings and they reflect the Proposed Settlement Hierarchy in Policy S1, the Development Strategy set out in the revised DLF1 and Policy SL5 Development Sites outside the Strategic Locations for Development. The Council considers that it is sustainable to have targets particularly for the rural settlements, otherwise it is highly likely that while the Local Plan was being prepared the most popular villages e.g. Wrea Green would have received unsustainable amounts of development and other villages would have received very little.”   Unfortunately this has already happened, although FBC Planning, mainly, have tried to stick by their guns and Appeal Inspectors gave the approvals. The two exceptions are The Fieldings and the first tranche of Willows Edge (which led to the Appeal Inspector approving the rest).   10.3    Overall following the 5 days of Stage 2, which CAPOW attended in full, a considerable number of amendments are to be made to the FBC Planning Policies, although many were fairly minor clarifications. There were some challenges to the number of proposed builds in both the 5 year and overall supply. Having heard all the arguments, this did appear to be logical. However, FBC use an overall non-specific 10% reduction for sites not coming forward for development. Nevertheless, it was clear that many developers were present merely to ensure that additional sites (usually their own site/s) were added. A brief (private) discussion indicated it is the main role of many of the attendees to try and get additional sites deemed as necessary. These attendees go from Local Plan Examination to Local Plan Examination throughout the year as “big money” is involved.   10.4    In her summing up on 28 June, the Examiner advised that she will be writing to FBC the following week to identify the main modifications required to make the Local Plan “sound” (see para 10.6). There then has to be a further public consultation on the changes required to the Local Plan and the finalised Local Plan is unlikely to be in place until late 2018, at the earliest. Even this relies on whether Wyre produce their Local Plan in the meantime and how FBC can cooperate on the Wyre shortfall.   10.5    I believe that a Stage 3 Examination (possibly written) will be required to consider ADDITIONAL development sites. At the end of Stage 2, FBC indicated that their own re-calculations identified a shortfall in the current 5 year supply of 110 houses. A High Court case appears to have decided that only 15 properties can be taken into account within the 5 year supply from each new site approved – due to the time-lag in starting a development. If this sets a precedent, that means FBC require a further 8 sites of 15 or more properties to achieve the required 5 year supply. CPRE may be looking further at the High Court ruling as this is VERY recent and could be caused by specific circumstances. One site in Elswick was approved, subject to conditions, on 28 June – leaving 7 sites required. A further site in Elswick has been submitted since.   10.6    In her letter to FBC, dated 3 July (full copy below, in blue), The Examiner sees no justification for use of the Liverpool method, which allocates the current shortfall over the plan period, rather than the first 5 years. Whilst we do not have the revised shortfall figures, these are likely to be significantly higher than 110 as mentioned in para 10.5 above. Of course a shortfall will require the approval of even MORE development sites and to enable construction within 5 years! Despite FBC’s prior assessment of the lack of sustainability and County Highways objections to development in Wrea Green currently, this may not mean we will not be allocated more housing in the short-term. All we can do is highlight the various reasons why this allocation should not take place but the decision will be with the Examiner, just as many of the previous decisions have been made by Planning Inspectors.     FYLDE COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION Inspector: Mrs Yvonne Wright BSc(Hons) DipTP MSc DMS MRTPI Programme Officer: Mr Tony Blackburn Tel: 01254 260286 Email: Tony.Blackburn@fylde.gov.uk Dear Mr Evans Fylde Council Local Plan – Next Steps
  1. Further to the Stage 2 examination hearing sessions held between 20 and 28 June 2017, this letter sets out next steps as discussed during the final session.
 
  1. Firstly though, in the Stage 2 round-up session the Council gave an initial response to the matters of clarification I highlighted at the start of Stage 2 proceedings. One matter related to the justification for the Council’s approach to the delivery of the housing shortfall (undersupply) that has accumulated since the beginning of the Plan period. As the Council is fully aware, at this stage this is based on objectively assessed housing needs and housing requirement figures that are subject to further consultation and examination. I heard that the Council considers that local circumstances justify the use of the Liverpool approach rather than Sedgefield.
 
  1. However the factors that were highlighted by the Council in the session, on their own, do not provide sufficient justification for use of the Liverpool approach. Can I therefore ask the Council to respond to the following queries:
 
  1. Can any sites proposed to be delivered later in the Plan period be realistically brought forward into the five year supply?
  2. Are there any additional sites available within the Borough that would conform to the Plan’s development strategy and be deliverable within the first five years?
 
  1. At the round-up session, I queried whether bus service details set out within the settlement hierarchy assessment paper were up-to-date for certain settlements. I also heard that other services may have changed since the assessment was produced. The Council should consider this matter, clearly set out their findings and confirm whether there are any implications for the position of settlements within the settlement hierarchy.
 
  1. The Council response received on the above matters will need to be consulted on as part of the forthcoming consultation exercise. This should be for a minimum of 6 weeks and also include the Council’s new evidence produced in relation to objectively assessed housing needs, economic forecasting, the housing requirement, housing trajectory and the five year
housing land supply. This should include implications for any relevant policies within the Plan (such as S1, DLF1 and SL1-SL5). In addition, any implications for carrying out further sustainability appraisal needs to be assessed at this stage.  
  1. I would therefore be most grateful if the Council could confirm as soon as possible when a response to the above queries can be produced and when the dates for the 6 week consultation period are proposed.
 
  1. During the hearing sessions the Council was asked to provide further details and consider main modifications on other specific matters within the Plan. However a response on these issues is not needed prior to the start of consultation on the above matters. I will issue a deadline for submission of this information in due course subject to Council clarification as to when responses can be provided.
 
  1. Following the consultation period it will be necessary for me to examine the evidence and representations made on these matters. Whether or not Stage 3 hearing sessions will be necessary will be confirmed at a later date.
  Yours Sincerely Y Wright Inspector 3 July 2017   11        Proposed significant extension to 29 Ribby Road (No SHLAA reference)   11.1    It is not usual for CAPOW to be involved in an individual property. However, this 27ft rear extension is adjoining a Grade II listed property. We have concerns about the effect of such an extension on the listed property (also a very old adjoining hedge). It appears that application 17/0424 is speculative and likely to affect the ambiance of the listed property. We were asked for, and provided, limited verbal advice regarding this application. We do consider that the three adjoining properties, which are just outside the Conservation Area, OUGHT to be “listed” for the future, even if the listing of the other two is a “local listing”. We understand that the FBC Planning Officer is NOT supportive of the large extension to the middle property.   Summary of Outstanding/Ongoing Matters   At DMC level – (please note we have to work for information on the Planning website to use as “a best guess” as to when an application will come before the DMC, UNLESS the Agenda has been issued or other information happens to be provided. This explains why some applications may not come forwarded as anticipated below. The basis of our “best guess” is linked to the requirement to consider an application within a proscribed time limit).   Application 16/1028 for 41 houses, west of Bryning Lane (now expected to be before the DMC on 26 July 2017).   Application 17/0005 land Adjacent to 53 Bryning Lane (expected to be before the DMC in July 2017 but may be delayed due to the current Appeal).   Application 17/0146 land west of The Brooklands (not now expected to be before the DMC until July 2017 or later).   Appeal against refusal of application 16/0619 Moss Side Lane (up to 50 houses).   Awaited/Expected – None known   Other Issues – Monitoring of compliance with Construction Plan Conditions and other matters at Ricksby Grange and Willows Edge (all on going), to which 54 Bryning Lane will be added when work commences.   John Rowson   Chairman of the Community Association for the Protection of Wrea Green 9 July 2017
John Rowson