Plans for Preston village housing estate rejected

Councillors have kicked out plans for a new housing estate on the outskirts of a Preston village – in spite of claims locals backed the development because of the new facilities that would come with it.

Preston City Council’s planning committee rejected a bid by Wain Homes to build up 167 properties on land off James Towers Way in Broughton.

As the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) revealed prior to the meeting at which the application was decided, Broughton Parish Council strongly supported the proposed scheme – which would also have included a community centre, care home, allotments and more car parking space for an expanded local primary school.

The parish authority’s chair, Pat Hastings, outlined to the committee the benefits that she said such infrastructure would bring for residents.

However, members ultimately agreed with the recommendation of city council planning officers that the proposal should be rejected, after hearing that it breached a local policy designed to ensure rural villages like Broughton remain separate from Preston’s urban core.

Nevertheless, the committee struggled with the conflict between the wishes of villagers and the city’s own planning rules – with committee member Cllr Peter Kelly asking what “weight” should be placed on the former.

Planning case officer Patrick Marfleet said while that judgement was a matter for individual councillors, the development was “contrary” to Preston’s local plan – which classifies the site both as an ‘area of separation’ and ‘open countryside’.

He added that while there were “benefits” to the scheme, they did not “outweigh the fundamental conflicts with the development plan”.

Mr. Marfleet said Preston has a “sufficient supply” of care homes of the type proposed and Broughton Primary School had access to an 84-space car park nearby.

“Obviously there [are] benefits to a community centre…but we don’t believe a 400-square-metre community centre justifies the development of a 22-hectare site,” he said.

Committee member Cllr Harry Landless described the decision as “a really tricky one”.

He added: “I’m a great advocate for [the policy of] not allowing development in the open countryside. …but it’s a difficult situation. When you’ve got a community strongly behind supporting development in [that location], it puts you in a sort of moral dilemma.”

Cllr Ben Ward queried whether approving the blueprint – and so going against local planning policy – could set “a precedent” when it came to similar applications in future.

Patrick Marfleet said it could prove “the thin end of the wedge” by strengthening the case for other non-compliant development.

The committee heard that not only was the site not reserved for development in Preston’s current local plan, it had also been omitted from the joint Central Lancashire Local plan that will supersede it next year – meaning housebuilding is unlikely to be approved there for at least the next 15 years.

Members were also told that when the city council had previously approved development in the open countryside it had been during periods when it was obliged to consider such proposals more favourably because it had been unable to demonstrate that it had a five-year supply of land to meet its new housing needs.

Speaking to the LDRS after the meeting, Cllr Hastings suggested the city authority was attempting to close the proverbial stable door after the development horse had long since bolted – and that residents had been left without the facilities that they needed to cope.

“We understand the fear of the councillors on the committee that if they gave us permission on the grounds of community [benefit] they would open the flood gates – but these are already open.

“The North West Preston development area [largely south of the M55] was supposed to be the limit of [new housing]. But you only have to look at Broughton, Barton and Grimsargh to see that that has not been the case.

“The promised infrastructure has not happened and agreeing to the primary school extension – in the area of separation – without any more parking and the mosque [to be constructed off D’Urton Lane], with the traffic issues it will cause, shows they are not looking to support the parishes.

“As a parish council, we don’t have the funds to challenge this decision… but we will have [a new council for Preston] soon, hopefully with a better understanding of rural matters,” Cllr Hastings said.