📧 Fleetwood Farm Planning Update – Flood Risk Assessment Under Review

Dear all,

I wanted to share an important update regarding the Fleetwood Farm development proposal.

On 24 June 2025, John McCall Architects (on behalf of the developer) submitted a formal response to concerns raised by West Lancashire Borough Council’s Spatial Planning team. These concerns focus on the Sequential Assessment, a requirement for developments in areas at risk of flooding, which tests whether safer, alternative sites could accommodate the proposed development.

The Council has challenged the developer’s assumptions — particularly around whether they excluded viable alternative sites by setting narrow commercial criteria. The developer has responded by referencing a recent legal case (Mead Realisations Ltd and Redrow Homes Ltd v Secretary of State, 2024) and is now requesting a meeting with Council officers to revisit the criteria and re-run the Sequential Assessment.

This is a significant development — it confirms the application is under pressure and could be refused if the revised assessment does not meet national planning policy.

 
📄 Full Email from the Developer:
Nicola,

Good morning,

Following receipt of the comments from Spatial Planning regarding the Sequential Assessment.

The key issue relates to the search parameters and case law, specifically Mead Realisations Ltd and Redrow Homes Ltd v Secretary of State (February 2024). We are unclear if the Council are asking us to remove the site size parameters and business case considerations or justify them further.

The case dealt with two claims in relation to the correct interpretation and application of the flood risk sequential test, focusing, amongst other things, on the meaning of ‘reasonably available’ and ‘sites appropriate for the proposed development’. In relation to the latter, the judgement acknowledges the tension between the need for developers to seriously consider sequentially preferable sites; whilst respecting that businesses operate within parameters which cannot be fully disregarded. An example given in the judgement is the degree to which a supermarket could be required to vary their usual operations in order to occupy a sequentially-preferable town centre unit. The quantum of housing which can be delivered on a single site is a similar operational concern, particularly affordable housing for which the operator has specific post-construction responsibilities.

The judgement states:
‘The policy to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding would be defeated if any examination of alternative sites is restricted by inflexible requirements set by developers. But a broad, non-specific approach by planning authorities to sequential assessments which generally disregards development requirements could lead to inappropriate business decisions being imposed on developers or the market. There is a need for realism and flexibility on all sides.’

Ultimately, the judgement places the responsibility on the decision maker. They must decide the degree of flexibility which is to be ascribed to that which the developer states is vital for their operations.

At paragraph 109, the judgement clarifies:
‘The PPG also states that reasonably available sites may include "a series of smaller sites and/or part of a larger site if these would be capable of accommodating the proposed development." Whether such an arrangement is so capable depends on the judgments to be made by the decision-maker on such matters as the type and size of development, location, ownership issues, timing and flexibility. Taking into account his assessment of any case advanced by the developer on need and/or market demand, the decision-maker may consider smaller sites (or disaggregation) if appropriate for accommodating the proposed development.’

Paragraph 110 reads:
‘I note that the PPG refers to a "series of smaller sites." The word "series" connotes a relationship between sites appropriate for accommodating the type of development which the decision-maker judges should form the basis for the sequential assessment. This addresses the concern that a proposal should not automatically fail the sequential test because of the availability of multiple, disconnected sites across a local authority's area. The issue is whether they have a relationship which makes them suitable in combination to accommodate any need or demand to which the decision-maker decides to attach weight.’

The judgement therefore does not exclude the possibility of site size parameters or business model requirements. However, it makes clear that in using such parameters for the purposes of sequential testing, both the developer and the decision maker must demonstrate a suitable level of flexibility.

On the basis of the above, while search parameters were agreed on initially, time has moved on. In order to move forward, we would welcome a meeting with the case officer and spatial planning officer so that we can agree parameters and re-run the sequential test in a manner which is agreeable to all to ensure a positive resolution of the application.

As time is pressing on this application we would be grateful if the meeting could be Thursday morning or Friday if possible.

Should you need any further information or wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

Regards,
Dave

David Smith ACIAT ACIOB Tech IOSH
Director – John McCall Architects
 
✅ What This Means for the Campaign
The Council has formally questioned the flood risk assessment — a serious issue for the developer.
If they can’t justify Fleetwood Farm as the only viable option, the application could be delayed or refused.
The developer is trying to fix the problem by re-running their assessment — but the Council must still apply national policy and their own scrutiny.
 
✉️ Take Action: Raise Your Concerns
This is a key moment to keep up the pressure. You can send your objections or concerns to:

📧 Nicola Cook – Principal Planning Officer
nicola.cook@westlancs.gov.uk

📧 Planning Applications
plan.apps@westlancs.gov.uk

📧 West Lancashire Member Services (for local councillors)
member.services@westlancs.gov.uk

You may want to highlight:

The flood risk at Fleetwood Farm
The need to fully consider alternative, lower-risk sites
The potential impact on local services, wildlife, and infrastructure
 
📢 Keep Promoting the Petition
The petition is more important than ever. Please continue to:

Share the petition link with friends, family, and neighbours
Post on local Facebook groups and forums
Encourage people to sign and add their comments
The more signatures we gather, the harder it becomes to ignore the strength of local feeling.

Thank you again for your continued support. Every voice and every signature helps.