Petition updateDon't take away our Local Centre

My Objection to the Planning Committee

John GreenBlackburn, ENG, United Kingdom
Jun 22, 2023

Dear Planning Committee,

I would like to strongly object to the recent planning application under reference 06/2023/0587 & 06/2023/0599

The outline planning permission initially granted for this development was in harmony with the "Northwest Preston Masterplan SPD Document 02 March 2017," envisioning a Local Centre which would enhance the neighbourhood's accessibility, sustainability, and provide the necessary community facilities. The recent proposal to scale back the development to a mere convenience store and a large care home significantly deviates from this vision, depriving the community of its centre. The development's strategic location by the link road would have created an excellent hub for transport and promoted walkability. The revised plan adds only a convenience store, which is already present at the bottom of the road.

1.      Divergence from Original Vision

The initial masterplan proposal comprised a diverse range of facilities to create a Local (Main) Centre in line with the "Northwest Preston Masterplan SPD Document 02 March 2017." The revised proposal represents a significant departure from the original plan. Although the Masterplan was indicative, the concept of local centres is a fundamental principle. If a local centre is required, no other location would serve as effectively as one in the heart of the development and benefiting from such excellent transport links.

2.      Sustainable Neighbourhoods

The revised proposal undermines the principle of sustainable neighbourhoods as outlined in the Masterplan, limiting the residents' ability to walk to various facilities. For some of the further parts of the new developments proposed on Bartle Lane, Cottam Brickworks would be nearly an hour's walk away. The proposed plan does not fulfill the Masterplan's vision of a comprehensive community infrastructure, including a diverse range of facilities and services.

3.      Diversity of Facilities

The revised proposal introduces another large care home, similar to the 89-bed facility in the nearby area (planning application number 06/2022/1215), contradicting the principle of providing a range of facilities. I and many residents don't object to changes being made. There are endless options, such as replacing the hotel with a restaurant, replacing the pub with a larger convenience store, removing the drive-through for a slightly bigger care home at the northern end, and more. The initial proposal offered a mix of uses. Unfortunately, we have moved from a site with diverse facilities meeting the objectives of the Masterplan to a proposal that barely meets any of these objectives while exploiting a key resource (Link Road).

4.      Removal of Key Medical Unit

The revised plan removes a key unit for medical use. An area preparing to provide such extensive care facilities surely needs medical amenities, at the very least, a pharmacy.

5.      Questionable Claims of Lack of Interest

The claim of no interest in certain proposed facilities, such as a medical centre or a hairdresser, could be due to ineffective marketing strategies or setting prices so high that it discourages interest, rather than a genuine lack of interest. It seems extraordinarily convenient that a care home builder’s market research concluded that the only viable option for this land is to construct a large care home.

6.      Market Research Concerns

Although market research may hold validity, it is premature to dismiss certain facilities as commercially unviable in the area. The area is still developing, and its full potential is yet to be realized. There's no evidence suggesting efforts were made to consult local residents or business owners potentially interested in occupying units in the proposed Local (Main) Centre.

The claim that there's no interest in establishing businesses such as hairdressers, dog groomers, chip shops, butchers, bakers, and other small businesses in the centre of 5000 newly constructed affluent homes is hard to believe. I would eagerly take a unit for any of these businesses. If the lack of interest is indeed a concern, I suggest allowing more time for the community to fill the units. Given a reasonable market rent, there is no doubt these units would be swiftly occupied.

The East Way Hub perfectly illustrates this. Initially, the hub's units were vacant. However, as people recognized their potential, they were quickly filled, leading to the establishment of a new dentist in the area. This case clearly shows how providing individuals the opportunity to see the potential of the units can lead to successful occupancy.

The revised proposal appears to prioritize the private developer's interests over the long-term interests of the community. This approach does not serve our community, and any potential benefit to city-wide care provision is overshadowed by the complete lack of facilities to cater to them.

7.      Parking

As an entirely side issue, the current plans give nowhere near sufficient parking for a large convenience store that will be on a major link road attracting a lot of additional foot fall.

Conclusion

Liberty Care Homes may not want, be able to, or afford to build what they initially promised, but others will, and they most certainly won't leave the land vacant. It would be considerably more beneficial for the community to have the land remain vacant until someone willing to build it comes along, or the market becomes more desirable for Liberty Care Homes. The short-term market situation should not remove such a valuable community resource.

I would like to conclude by quoting a couple of paragraphs from the "Northwest Preston Masterplan SPD Document 02 March 2017" covering community facilities, and it's clear that any attempt to apply these principles to the current application fails.

“To deliver healthy, attractive, and sustainable new communities, the Masterplan provides a range of facilities and services. The options consultation exercise identified that the preferred option was to deliver services via a main (central) local centre supplemented by smaller local centres, rather than an all-encompassing larger centre. The locations of these have been strategically placed (and co-located where possible) making them accessible by walking and cycling, supporting healthy communities. Local centres may include a mix of uses including health and community-based services as well as retail outlets.

Community centres need to be local to the area that they are intended to serve. Large scale development such as this can create issues relating to social isolation and sterile social environments and therefore there will be a need to support and foster community activity and involvement. It is felt relying on existing facilities of those in the surrounding area which are too distant would be inadequate. The provision of one main community centre is therefore strongly promoted (probably co-located with other uses).”

Copy link
WhatsApp
Facebook
Nextdoor
Email
X