A date for the planning committee meeting to decide on application 2024/1028/FUL has not yet been set. In the meantime, North Meols Parish Council has submitted a formal objection to the proposed housing-only development at Fleetwood Farm. You can read their full letter of objection below, which highlights strong local opposition and calls for a mixed-use scheme that includes retail, leisure, and community facilities.  Please contiue to encourage others to sign the petition the more signatures we have the more backing we are giving the people arguing the case against the plans when the meeting eventually happens.

Sent via email plan.apps@westlancs.gov.uk

2024/1028/FUL

Demolition of existing structures and erection of a housing scheme of 20 dwellings, comprised of 8 dwelling houses, 4
bungalows and 8 cottage style apartments with access, car parking, landscaping and other associated works

                 NORTH MEOLS PARISH COUNCIL OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION

A mixed-use scheme of retail / commercial/leisure/housing would be preferred.
As can be seen by the number of objections from residents, this application has massive local opposition.

Residents feel that their views have been ignored by WLBC. Banks has expanded in recent years, but the additional housing has not been supported by new infrastructure. This site is the only place suitable for a village centre, there are other areas suitable for housing which could accommodate the affordable houses proposed here.  This site has a strong history of retail and village community. The Cropper family ran what was known locally as “Harrods of Banks” selling fruit and veg, clothing, hardware, household items, pet food and accessories, hay, straw, chicken food, Bric-a-Brack and many other items too numerous to list. Recent social media includes “ It was like a
magical Aladdin's cave, felt very special” “My dad used to buy his chicken pellets from there on a Saturday morning” The Banks Homing Society met there to prepare and send pigeons to race. Fleetwood Farm truly was a local hub and sadly though there was still plenty of trade, this stopped when the owners retired. BUT the planning statement submitted, page 18, 5.15 “tests are set out for the change of use from retail to other uses, which does not apply in this case as there is no existing or historic retail use on the site” Clearly we disagree!

LOCAL PLAN: Policies which support a mixed use site of retail, leisure, commercial and housing include; Chapter 2, 2.37 refers to Banks “There are a limited range of facilities within the village" Since this was written Banks has had multiple housing developments and no additional facilities Chapter 3: vision for 2027” The large villages within rural areas will be sustainable hubs for local services, at the centre of sustainable rural communities”

Policy SP1: 4.11 “Key sustainable villages must provide a good number of essential services and facilities as well as some local opportunities for employment”

Policy SP1: 4.18 “New development in Key Sustainable villages will provide opportunity for new housing (especially affordable housing) and for rural employment opportunities but this must be limited to retain the rural character of such
villages”

Policy EC2: “Employment opportunities, whether urban or rural, are a finite resource and once lost for non-employment use, particularly if lost to residential uses, are unlikely to ever come back into an employment generating use”

Policy EC3:6.33 “Acknowledging that bringing the site forward for 100% employment use may not be the most sustainable approach to take. Mixed use opportunities should be considered for all these sites, ensuring that whilst some of the site is retained for a sustainable employment use, the remainder of the site provides opportunities to address other local issues, such as affordable housing or provide contribution towards local services and infrastructure schemes”

Policy IF1: Maintaining vibrant town and local centres, Banks is classed as a large village. “The purpose of policy IF1 is to set out the retail hierarchy for the borough: to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of town and local centres by retaining an appropriate percentage of retail uses there and by encouraging the retention and viability of other recognized centre uses, such as commercial, leisure and cultural facilities”

Policy IF3: Community facilities “Development proposals for new public facilities and services should be co-located where possible, creating “community hubs” and providing a range of services in one sustainable and accessible location. Where new facilities are required independent of new development, they should be located in the most accessible location available” “The Infrastructure Development Plan will be the basis for identifying infrastructure requirements needed to support development” This includes “social and community” hospital, GP, dentist, children’s centres, schools, further education, emergency services, libraries, youth centres, leisure centres, community halls, local convenience shop, theatres, public realm, public house”

As already stated, Banks has had housing developments but no additional infrastructure. The design and access statement submitted with the application p9 states “The surroundings offer a number of established education, retail, health and leisure facilities and employment opportunities” “good local amenities close to
the site” yet in excess of 80 residents have objected to the plans on grounds of lack of amenities and infrastructure.

Policy GN3: general development policies, reducing flood risk.  3.v.“Robust justification will be required for any development seeking to connect surface water to the public sewer network” The application proposes to discharge surface water to the existing 150mm diameter combined public sewer – as with other infrastructure the sewers are not fit for purpose, this discharge must be avoided as it will lead to flooding of
sewage somewhere else.

Policy GN4: “The council will seek to retain existing commercial / industrial and retail land/premises, together with agricultural/horticultural workers’ dwellings, unless it can be demonstrated that one of the following tests has been met”

e.g. iii) “The land / premises has been regularly advertised and targeted at the appropriate audience” At the public meeting, it appeared that the scheme had been planned for two years, without public consultation and without this advertising.

Policy EN4: Cultural and heritage assets: “There will be a presumption in favour of protection and enhancement of existing non-designated heritage assets which have a particular local important character which is desirable to keep. Such historic buildings will be identified through a local list which will be adopted by the council” 

Local heritage list “Large farm house - long house form (farmhouse and barn under one roof)” “Quite a landmark building given it’s scale and length” “Together with the church opposite forms part of a late18th/early 20th century phase of development, little of which remains in Banks” Date stone inscribed “Bold Fleetwood Hesketh ETq 1787” Original owner was born in 1762 and went on to become the High Sheriff of Lancashire in 1797. The High Sheriff position dates back to the Middle Ages in 1154, when it was a powerful position in the control of Law and Order in the county.  Despite the local plan and the listing of Fleetwood Farm as a building of local importance (which is desirable to keep) the heritage statement submitted states “it is considered that the buildings of Fleetwood Farm, through extensive alteration followed by loss and deterioration, no longer possess a particular local importance and therefore is not inappropriate or unjustified to propose their demolition”

The design and access statement refers to Fleetwood Farm as an eyesore!
How presumptive is this? It demonstrates lack of local knowledge or consultation on the significance of this building to the community! We compare application 2022/0554, Ashcrofts’ shop, Mere Brow. Where the old cottage was retained “To preserve the character and appearance of the designated heritage asset and to ensure compliance with Policy EN4of the West Lancashire Local Plan.”
Fleetwood Farm was the principal farmstead of Banks. The extensive alterations appear to refer to change of windows, cills and lintels as would be expected, the footprint has not changed. Obviously there has been deterioration in recent years but not to the point that demolition is the only option.  Policy EN2: Preserving and enhancing West Lancashire’s natural environment  “where development is considered necessary, adequate mitigation measures and compensating habitat creation will be required” The ecology report states that a barn owl was observed roosting in building B7b and foraging was observed by 5 species of bat: common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, daubentons bat, brown long-eared bat and noctule bat.  The application does not explain how compensatory habitat would be provided for the owls and bats? Seven common pipistrelle day roosts were also identified, and it is stated that demolition of buildings 1a,1b,1c and 2 would require a licence from Natural England. As the roosts are in the farmhouse and barn, avoiding demolition of these as previously discussed would be beneficial to the bats. Policy IF2: enhancing sustainable transport choice

2) parking standards defined in the local plan for the proposed dwellings add up to 32 spaces: the application has 26 spaces plus 2 visitor spaces. The proposed parking is not adequate, Church Road already has issues with too many cars parked obstructing the flow of cars, tractors, HGVs etc.  Banks has had more than enough housing developments over recent years.

There have been plans passed for infrastructure/retail but then these have not been built but more plans passed for yet more housing.  2012/0591/HYB was for a care home (built) and a mixed-use development including a doctors’ surgery, pharmacy,
nursery and specialist care facility. Then 2014/1400/FUL approved 26 units of social housing replacing the mixed-use plans.

2013/1185/OUT at the site of St Stephens school, Hoole Lane was passed for a retail development with parking and some affordable housing. This was central to the village and would have been ideal, but then 2015/0265/FUL for 29 units of affordable housing was passed on the site. This was a missed opportunity to have some retail units in a central position, this site was lost to affordable housing.

The people of Banks are asking for a village centre, Fleetwood Farm is ideal and is the last site available.  Tawd Valley Developments proposed a mixed use development at Fleetwood Farm but as in previous situations in Banks, then changed to affordable housing. Whilst we understand that more affordable housing is needed (other sites are available for this) the people of Banks feel that they are not being listened to in their requests for a mixed use site and a village centre similar to Marks Square, Tarleton.
To have a mixed-use scheme on Fleetwood Farm would provide infrastructure to support the housing we already have. We ask that WLBC refuse this application.

Yours sincerely,

Lesley Kerr

Clerk to North Meols Parish Council

For and On behalf of North Meols Parish Council