75 homes at North East Avenue, Brinscall, Chorley

What was proposed

The application sought demolition of the existing buildings and construction of 75 market homes with parking, access points and central public open space.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the erection of 75 dwellings (Use Class C3). The proposed development comprises solely of market-tenure housing comprising a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 bed terrace, semi-detached and detached dwellings across 12 house types. Car parking provision would be made within the curtilage of each dwelling, with the majority of spaces directly accessed from a central spine road.”

“The dwellings would be accessed via the existing means of access from Railway Road, along with two new access points from Railway Road in order to allow direct access to the highway from plot nos. 1 to 4 on the western side of the site frontage, and plot nos. 72 to 74 on the eastern side of the frontage.”

Officer report

The site

The 2.8-hectare site was a former timber-processing and building-products business with industrial buildings, concrete yards, limited vegetation and woodland nearby.

“The application site is situated within the defined settlement boundary of Withnell, as identified in the adopted Chorley Local Plan 2012–2026, to the north-west of Railway Road. The site comprises an irregularly shaped yet well-proportioned parcel of land measuring approximately 2.8 hectares which was previously used for employment purposes, accommodating a timber processing and building products manufacturing business (Donaldson Timber).”

“The immediate surrounding area comprises a mix of land uses and built forms. This includes a terrace of traditional stone-built residential properties to the north-east at Mount Pleasant, together with a range of commercial uses located further to the north-east along Bury Lane and a health centre to the south-east of the site. The application site is flanked to both the north and south by areas of dense deciduous woodland.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

Earlier permissions covered a maintenance workshop, timber storage sheds, heater plant, company advertising, retrospective timber cladding and an acoustic fence.

“Ref: 75/00651/FUL Decision: PERFPP Decision Date: 10 November 1975 Description: 3 timber storage and drying sheds…”

“Ref: 11/01047/FUL Decision: PRRRTF Decision Date: 23 January 2012 Description: Retrospective application for the timber cladding of the southern elevation of timber storage shed.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval with conditions and a legal agreement, including contributions for open space and education and biodiversity net gain.

“It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions and a S106 legal agreement to require the following: • A Public Open Space contribution of £182,475 (£129,975 if it is to be privately maintained) • A minimum education contribution of £168,762 up to a maximum contribution of £534,413 for 19 secondary school places (final amount to be agreed following further discussions with Lancashire County Council Education Services) • Biodiversity Net Gain…”

Officer report

The main planning balance

Officers found conflicts over employment land and the missing flood sequential test, but considered housing, brownfield redevelopment and amenity benefits outweighed them.

“While it is clear that the proposed development would result in the loss of a generously proportioned employment site containing a significant number of buildings, when this is considered in a borough wide context where there is no identified shortfall in the supply of employment land, it is not considered that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the type, quality or quantity of employment land.”

“The proposed development is considered to deliver a significant enhancement to visual amenity through the redevelopment of a previously developed brownfield site currently occupied by large, utilitarian industrial buildings that make a limited contribution to the character of the semi-residential area. Their replacement with well-designed housing would better reflect and integrate with the prevailing character of the surrounding locality.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while education services and the parish council objected unless their concerns were addressed.

“Chorley Council’s Ecology Adviser – Have not raised any objections to the proposed development, subject to the imposition of recommended conditions. See main body of report.”

“Lancashire County Council Education Service – Have stated that they object to the proposed development, however, the objection will be withdrawn if their education requirements are met.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Ten representations raised concerns about parking, congestion, construction traffic, employment loss, healthcare, trees, rights of way and flooding.

“Ten representations have been received citing the following grounds of objection to the proposed development –”

“Lack of parking in Brinscall and Withnell • Highway congestion • How will construction traffic access the site? • Loss of employment use • It would be better to use the site for business uses • Lack of GP places • Loss of trees and hedges • Impact on public rights of way • Flood risk • Site should remain in employment use • It is disputed that the site is not suitable for employment use • There has been interest from local businesses…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The public speakers were a ward councillor and the agent.

The committee debate

A proposal to defer the application for a site visit was defeated by six votes to five before members considered the permission proposal.

“After careful consideration, it was Councillor Alan Whittaker, seconded by Councillor Chris Snow, that the application be deferred to allow Members to visit the site, this was lost (6 against, 5 for). It was then proposed by Councillor Craige Southern, seconded by Councillor Martin Topp and subsequently resolved (7 for, 3 against and 1 abstention) that planning permission be granted subjected to conditions, ad a Section 106 legal agreement to require the following.”

Minutes