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

In addition to our letter of 3rd February, please would the planning committee consider our response to documents added
since the initial consultation:
Relating to the “strategic policy” document of 2.2.25
As can be seen by the 200+ objections from residents, along with a petition of 1345 signatures, the mixed-use scheme
initially proposed by TVD would be preferred. However, “strategic policy” states that this would not be feasible for the
applicant as a provider of affordable housing. This site has retail history which alongside the community wishes and local
plan legislation provides strong evidence that a village Centre /mixed use scheme should be built. This over-rides the
statement that TVD provides affordable housing.
“Strategic planning” p4 makes a comparison to a 2015 application at the former St Stephens school
“The proposal (Fleetwood Farm) would not result in the loss of any retail lor town Centre uses, consistent with officer
reports 2015/0265 – St Stephens school” The 2015 application was for affordable housing on a site which had planning
permission for mixed use retail/parking/housing. The officer advised that a housing scheme would be acceptable at the
school site as there was no retail history – Obviously Fleetwood Farm does have retail history so this comparison is not
valid, retail should be considered first to comply with local plan EC2, EC3, IF1, IF3 and GN4.
The officers report on application 2015/0265 (St Stephens School) further demonstrates the lack of amenities and village
Centre in Banks
“ 7.6, Banks village Centre is different from other designated centres within the borough in that the level of retail and
town centre uses is very low (less than 30%). This is because retail and town centre use in Banks are not consolidated
in one place”
“7.7, Banks is a growing village with several large housing estates having been developed or granted permission in recent
years and it could be considered that that Banks is underprovided for in terms of retail provision and other appropriate
town centre uses in comparison to its population”
“7.9 The application (St Stephen’s school) would not involve loss of retail uses and therefore complies with IF1” This is
NOT the same situation as Fleetwood Farm.
SO, IN 2015 WLBC OFFICERS STATED THAT BANKS WAS UNDERPROVIDED FOR IN RETAIL AND TOWN
CENTRE FACILITIES IN COMPARISON TO POPULATION.
IN THE 10 YEARS SINCE, OVER 200 NEW HOUSES HAVE BEEN BUILT WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL RETAIL /
TOWN CENTRE FACILITIES.
FLEETWOOD FARM IS THE LAST CENTRAL SITE AVAILABLE FOR A VILLAGE CENTRE AND SHOULD BE
DEVELOPED TO PROVIDE RETAIL/EMPLOYMENT/INFRASTRUCTURE/COMMUNITY FACILITIES.
We dispute the claim by Strategic Planning that as there is no retail planning record at Fleetwood Farm the lawful
use of the site is agricultural!
The surrounding land has been developed; no farming has been done for at least 80 years. Retail use here
probably pre-dated the planning system and certainly exceeded to 10-year rule making retail use lawful.
Relating to “response letter” by Zerum Planning
1)Zerum Planning comment on the Strategic Planning document “Town centre uses”
“It finds the presence of a Co-Op food store may suggest that the site is a desirable location for town centre uses”
BUT the planning consultant fails to recognise that Fleetwood Farm is designated as a “village centre” on the Local Plan
map and therefore housing is not acceptable under Local Plan policy DE10.
The consultant again states that the former use of the site was agricultural, as stated above we dispute this and have
many residents who will testify to shopping there for decades!
2)Zerum Planning comment on the Strategic Planning document “Employment opportunities”
“The site was previously a farm” – possibly 100 years ago!
Then proceeds to attempt to explain how policy GN4 applies. This explanation of how agricultural use here is not viable
appears to be at cross-purposes as obviously the use was retail – retail or mixed use would actually comply with GN4 as
well as being preferable for existing residents.
Sequential test
This was submitted in December 2024 and does not appear to have been resubmitted as was the exception test.
12 sites were looked at, none were found from the local plan but “windfall” sites from marketing agents were included.
The sites were one in each of Mere Brow, Tarleton, Burscough and Up Holland and seven in Skelmersdale. They were
all said to be unsuitable and seemed a strange list of locations which were not real alternatives to Fleetwood Farm.
On the emerging local plan, sites being worked on currently include seven sites of lower flood risk and similar area,
nearer to Banks and do appear to be available and alternatives to Fleetwood Farm. These are TPN005, TPN013, TPN
014, TPN015, TPN018, TPN023, TPN025 and TPN030.
Relating to “Exception test” by Zerum planning
The site is in flood zone 3.
The application sequential test has not identified any alternative sites of lower flood risk.(As above, we disagree).
Therefore, the exception test is applied. To pass it must be demonstrated that the development would provide wider
sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk.
There are 13 sustainability objectives in West Lancs, although lengthy we feel it necessary to go through these as they
obviously favour a mixed-use scheme.
“1)Cater for the needs of a generally ageing population”
A village centre would do this by providing community facilities in a central location for the ageing population to access
easily.
“2)To reduce borough-wide inequalities with regard to learning, skills, educational attainment and employability”
As detailed above, Banks is unusual in not having a village centre. Community facilities at Fleetwood Farm would satisfy
this requirement. A housing scheme would not.
“3) To improve and reduce disparities in health and wellbeing”
A village centre with health facilities would do this.
“4) To reduce economic inactivity and disparities in employment”
Retail and commercial units to let would do this.
“5) To encourage sustainable economic growth”
“Future residents will make use of local services and facilities, and will work and spend money locally”
As approximately 200 residents have said, and 1345 signed a petition, local services and facilities are sadly lacking! This
is the last site where they could be provided. The current population needs this site to be developed then they can spend
money locally.
“6) To facilitate diversification of the rural economy”
“The proposed scheme will contribute towards creating a more vibrant centre”
We disagree! More houses would not do this but a mixed-use scheme would.
“7)To seek to meet the housing needs of all sectors of society”
A mixed-use scheme would supply some housing along with much needed facilities.
“8)To contribute towards an efficient, equitable and environmentally sustainable transport system”
The parking allocation is not sufficient for local plan requirements. Church road is busy and already has parking issues,
this scheme would lead to parking on the main road and make the situation even worse.
“9) To preserve and enhance the borough’s land resources”
A mixed-use scheme would be a positive use of this land. As it id designated as village centre it should not be used for
housing. Policy DE10.
“10) To preserve, and where possible, enhance, and to recognise the added value of the built and cultural heritage of the
borough”
Fleetwood Farm is on the local heritage list as a building of local importance. It is the oldest farmstead in the village and
has a rich cultural heritage. The proposal is to demolish it and replace with new build designated “cottage style” to pay
lip service to the historic building. This does not acknowledge the culture and local importance of the site and certainly
does not satisfy this aim.
“11) To minimise contributions towards, and mitigate the impacts of climate change and protect against flood risk”
Housing is classed as “more vulnerable”
“Less vulnerable” includes shops, financial, professional, cafes and takeaways, offices, general industry, storage,
assembly and leisure.
Thus, this flood zone 3 site is more suited to mixed use than housing on flood risk grounds.
“12) To protect “water assets and ensure an adequate supply of water and means of disposing of wastewater.”
The plan proposes to feed top water and sewerage into the existing combined sewer. This is a last resort and should only
be approved if there is no alternative. In this case the existing sewer is at capacity now and would not cope with any
additional waste. It is likely that the local area would suffer sewage flooding as has happened before .
“13) To retain and, where possible, enhance the biodiversity assets of the borough.”
A mixed-use scheme would do this equally well.
Summary
A mixed-use scheme in the village centre would have far greater sustainability benefits across arrange of social,
environmental and economic factors than the proposed housing scheme. And would exceed the proposed plan in
contributing to each of the West Lancs Sustainability Objectives.
The exception test provided does not comply with policy GN3 of the Local Plan and section 14 of the National Planning
policy framework. Again, a mixed-use scheme would comply and be preferable for the village community.

WE ASK THAT THIS APPLICATION IS REFUSED

Yours sincerely,
Lesley Kerr

Clerk to North Meols Parish Council

For and On behalf of North Meols Parish Council