What we want the Government to do:

Review planning rules so developments cannot be approved on greenfield (‘greyfield’) land unless local infrastructure (GPs, roads, schools) is proven to be sufficient, and there is clear evidence that brownfield alternatives have been prioritised.

Communities across the UK are seeing developments approved on open land not because they are sustainable, but because of technical housing targets. In Aughton, West Lancashire, over 120 homes have been approved on open land despite serious concerns about pressure on GP services, road safety, and infrastructure capacity. Residents are not against housing — but developments should be in the right places, with the right support. Current planning rules allow decisions to be pushed through even when local services are already stretched, and without properly prioritising brownfield land. This is not sustainable for communities, the environment, or public services.

We ask the Government to ensure that development is fair, responsible, and infrastructure-led.

My latest objection sent in today (but it could just as easily be your village):

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write as a local resident to formally register my continued concern regarding Application Ref: 2025/0565/FUL.

While I note that the application has been resolved, I believe there remain material planning concerns that must be fully addressed through conditions, implementation, and any subsequent approvals.

Key Concerns

1. Sustainability and Infrastructure

There is clear evidence of existing pressure on local infrastructure, particularly:

• GP services and healthcare provision

• Road capacity and safety

In these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that this development represents genuinely sustainable growth, as required by national planning policy.

2. Failure to Prioritise Brownfield Land

There appears to have been no meaningful assessment of alternative sites, including brownfield opportunities.

Approving development on open land without demonstrating that better alternatives have been exhausted risks undermining a plan-led and sustainable approach to growth.

3. Premature Release of Safeguarded Land

The site forms part of safeguarded land intended for longer-term use.

Releasing it ahead of the emerging Local Plan risks:

• prejudging strategic decisions

• undermining confidence in the plan-led system

4. Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land

The permanent loss of high-quality agricultural land is a significant and irreversible impact.

This harm should be afforded substantial weight, particularly where less harmful alternatives have not been clearly discounted.

Request

In light of the above, I respectfully request that:

• All conditions and S106 obligations are applied rigorously and transparently

• Infrastructure provision is secured at an early stage, not deferred

• Any subsequent approvals or discharge of conditions are subject to full scrutiny and public consultation

This is not opposition to housing, but a request that development is delivered in a way that is fair, sustainable, and properly justified.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Blankstone