Central Lancashire Local Plan – November 2019

Please see below the list of Site Proposals in the area of Samlesbury & Walton. The full documents with further details can be viewed online here. Please leave comments below.

8 thoughts on “Central Lancashire Local Plan – November 2019”

  1. Re- Stanley Mount Gib Lane Hoghton
    I am Veronica Roper Sunnyside Gib Lane Hoghton I live more or less Stanley Mount , I am horrified to see planning permission has been put to South Ribble Council , I object strongly :-
    1. We are in a country area and there are already a lot of cars use this road & a lot at ridiculous speed , so there is more than enough traffic .
    Can be quite dangerous & often used as a cut through from the motorway if there is a problem on the motorway .
    2. There are 2 entrances to Stanley Mount and they are both near a very bad corner & there has been accidents & near accidents – safety hazard .
    3. We are in the country where there is a lot of wildlife e.g. The pond where there are newts & frogs .
    4. There are a number of trees on the land where the birds roost including owls – I hear them frequently from there .

    Reply
  2. I am absolutely appalled and horrified to hear of the proposed developments at the jct of Nabs Head Lane & Spring Lane, the Land at Lower Intacks farm & both in front and to the rear of Halfway house.
    We are a Green belt! Which means we are the green lung between Blackburn and Preston and should remain so!
    Precious farmland inhabiting not only farm animals and farmers means of surviving but numerous species of wildlife will go …. forever! Never ever to return …
    Nabs Head is a Lane with no pavements, the numerous vehicles that use it can’t pass in certain places let alone the heavy wagons that regularly use it thanks to the Water Treatment Plant. I’ve seen parents with children & dog walkers squashed into the sides – a very dangerous situation, what on earth would it be like if these developments went ahead with the extra traffic. Already the verges are being turned to mud and hedges being pushed over because the Lane is too narrow and can’t cope.
    Plus a new development would mar our wonderful scenery, changing our landscape for the worse forever. As a nation we’re encouraged as families to get out into the fresh air – if these developments go ahead Nabs Head Lane would become a Lane you couldn’t even walk down safely.
    The entrance into Nabs Head from the A677 is still a very dangerous place to turn in, you have to sit in a precarious position facing oncoming traffic, several times we’ve had near misses because people are overtaking coming towards us. Where would the entrances be for the proposed developments by Halfway House?? Again the increase in traffic would majorly impact on the junction.
    We as a country village don’t have the infrastructure to cope with these developments and demands on our system. Schools? Shops? Doctors? we have none, not even a post office.
    Nabs Head have endured all the massive developments at the water treatment plant and will continue to do so into the near future ….. you’re seriously wanting to put us through more?

    Reply
  3. There appears to be a lot of misunderstanding about the proposed Local Plan. All sites are merely suggestions at present and most if not all will not make it to the end of the Local Plan preparation in 2023. See web site centrallocalplan.lancashire.gov.uk

    Reply
  4. As part of their implementation of Central Lancashire’s core strategy, both the Ribble Valley and South Ribble Councils have committed via their Local Plan/LDP to retaining the natural character and benefits of the green belt until 2026. They have done so by implementing the following measures:

    • Existing Green Belt areas will be protected;
    • Fundamentally there is a presumption against exceptional substantial strategic change;
    • Being sympathetic to existing and proposed land use in terms of its size, intensity, nature and scale;
    • Consideration of the effects of development on existing amenities;
    • Consideration of the potential traffic and car parking implications;
    • Protection of SSSIS, Country Heritage, Local Nature Reserve, BAP habitats and species, Green Corridors and other sites of nature conservation;
    • Having regard to the importance of open space on the landscape or townscape of an area;
    • Introduction of a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
    • As set out in the NPPF, planning permission will not be given for the construction of new buildings unless there are very special circumstances;
    • Within the Green Belt, planning permission will only be given for development that is compatible by maintaining its fundamental open nature;
    • Permission will not be granted to inappropriate development in the Green Belt which adversely affects the openness of the land.
    • Introduction of burden on the applicant to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist which clearly outweigh the harm that would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt;
    • Presumption against inappropriate development on Protected Open Land;
    • Maintenance, enhancement and extension of the existing green corridor/green wedge network across South Ribble to deliver a green corridor network which performs the role of important natural buffers between all urban areas and new development;
    • Emphasis on protecting the attractiveness of the borough and enable communities to access these corridors for recreational purposes.

    The Central Lancashire Core Strategy states there will be no Green Belt review during the Plan period. Since implementation, nothing has changed to alter the Council’s strategic objectives of maintaining Green Belt integrity and avoiding widespread development which affects the local area.
    The proposed developments, most obviously on Blue Slate Farm, do not sit within the South Ribble Council’s LDP or the NPPF for the following reasons:

    1. Infilling of countryside;
    2. Destruction/reduction of open, country, agricultural and recreational areas;
    3. Development on Green Belt;
    4. Increased strain on already fraught road networks on Nabs Head Lane and Spring Lane, particularly given the presence of dog walkers, livery stables, and complete absence of pavements for pedestrians;
    5. Encouraging the use of cars instead of environmentally protective forms of transport.

    Furthermore, the developments will affect I see no reason for the Council to amend its strategic objectives to which it has committed until 2026, which would render all proposed developments outside of the narrow remit implemented by the Council, save for the Samlesbury Aerodrome Enterprise Site which has its own uniquely identified status.

    Reply
  5. We wish to object to all 8 of the proposed sites for development in the Samlesbury and Mellor areas for the following reasons:-
    1. The roads are already congested with BAE and Brewery traffic, also through traffic from Preston
    and the motorway.
    2. The destruction of Ancient Woodlands and its habitat.
    3. Disturbance of Wildlife, deer, (a number for different type) and badgers.
    4. There is No public transport for those in Social/Affordable Housing. Also more cars would be used
    for those who have them. to get anywhere. Increasing the Carbon Footprint.
    5. Schools, there are only small country schools for infant and junior children,there is not enough room
    for large influx of children.
    6. There are No Doctor/Dentist/Clinics etc in the area, people would have to travel a distance,
    Preston/Walton le Dale/Bamber Bridge/Hoghton/Blackburn , if they can get in, they are already full
    up.
    7. It’s all Green Belt land, the lose of farm land, we should be planting trees not building houses/light
    industry.
    8. Entrances and exits from the sites are onto small narrow country lanes with no pavements. some
    already traffic black spots.
    9. There is a Artesian Well near the motorway used by the Brewery, to draw water, this would be
    compromised.
    10. Roads are already being used as short cuts, to and from BAE.
    11. Narrow Roads are already being used by Large Lorries, to and from to and from the Brewerythat
    take all the road up.

    Reply
  6. We strongly object to the proposed sites for development in the Samlesbury and Mellor areas.

    Our reasons:-
    * This land is Green Belt land.
    ‘The green belt is the name given to describe the UK government policy for controlling urban growth. This legislation prevents any building work in the countryside, in order to maintain the land for agriculture or outdoor leisure purposes.’
    Further more in the central plan it quotes, ‘A number of site submissions to protect Green Belt sites were received as part of the Call for Sites processes. There are no plans at this time to undertake a review of the Green Belt boundaries in Central Lancashire and therefore, site suggestions to protect Green Belt sites have not been assessed for development at this stage of plan-making.’
    Therefore we would urge planners to protect and keep our green belt land safe for future generations.

    *Loss of farming land.
    The land within the proposals consists of farms which have been farmed by many generations of the same family, people who have been born and bred here and are the very fabric of the community. They provide employment for other young families. These people should not be forced to leave their homes and livelihood.

    * Farming land is a huge natural resource for the wildlife in the local area.
    Living on Cuerdale Lane ourselves we regularly see a variety of birds including birds of prey like barn owls, kestrels and buzzards. We see pheasants, deer, rabbits, foxes and other wildlife that would be threatened if such large scale developments occur. ‘The UK’s wildlife continues to decline according to the State of Nature 2019 report’. Surely we should be encouraging wildlife in the local area and not adding to the demise.

    * The roads in the area are already congested with BAE traffic and could not cope with the massive amount of commuter traffic that any development would bring, travelling in and out of the area. Brewery traffic already causes issues with large trucks waiting to enter the brewery, causing blind spots for anyone overtaking. The narrow lanes around Samlesbury are not suitable for anything other than village traffic.

    Reply
  7. With reference to the planning proposals for the both the Nabs Head Lane and Spring Lane area as well as the land at Lower Intacks farm, we too agree with everything Jean Brierley and H Webster have already said.

    We are totally dismayed that there are considerations to build on greenbelt land, especially as there are already construction works under way in the immediate area at BAE Systems and these will only increase.

    It is our utter disbelief at the thought of adding to the already swollen volume of traffic on A677, which has only got worse since developments on the BAE systems site increased. The road is already particularly bad during rush hour traffic at either end of the day as people commute between Preston, Blackburn and further afield. Since their introduction, the traffic lights system at the link road near KFC have frequently been the site of a number of accidents. We have witnessed numerous road users overtaking on the opposite side of the central reservation street furniture, as well as speeding towards and away.
    In addition to this, it is already hard, more time consuming and potentially dangerous for residents to leave / enter their drives, due to the increase in traffic from the link road across BAE and the blatant disregard of the speed limit along Preston New Road.
    The addition of more road users as a result of the proposed planning in both areas will only exacerbate the potential for more accidents, never mind compound the effect of the increased carbon footprint.

    We have lived on Preston New Road just over 10 years. We moved here for the peace and tranquillity of the location and for our wellbeing. We regularly walk along Park Lane (bridleway) enjoying the openness of the views, seeing the variety of wildlife, taking in the fresh air and relishing in the peacefulness of our beautiful, green countryside. This would disappear and adversely affect the enjoyment of where we live, if planning for housing and housing on such a scale was submitted and approved.

    In an ever expanding society, the demand for food will increase. How can supply meet demand if there is less available ‘farmable’ arable and livestock land? – and that is before we consider the debate for buying British / locally sourced products.

    If there were housing developments in these areas, it is likely that there will be more dogs, which could lead to the potential for them straying onto farmland and distressing livestock.

    Further to what H Webster and Jean Brierley suggested about the need for / impact on public services, (and we are not suggesting that we want more housing) how can we be sure that when developers promise to provide these services when they are submitting their tenders / plans, that they actually ensure they construct everything that is on their approved plans. More often than not they appear to find reasons not to fulfil their social obligations. You only need to look at many recent housing developments… where are the new schools, where are the new doctors surgeries etc? Where is the increase in supporting infrastructure? Current services are already full to capacity.

    If these proposals are approved, what is there to stop more developers having plans approved in the future: further increasing the urban sprawl that is slowly but surely reducing the beauty and appeal of the Ribble Valley and surrounding areas?

    Reply

Leave a comment