Content

  1. This statement provides a record of the two week consultation undertaken following the St. Annes on the Sea Neighbourhood Development Plan Public Hearing on 7 June 2016. It sets out the responses received on the potential textual amendments/changes to certain policies and justification contained in the St. Annes on the Sea Neighbourhood Development Plan (the Plan), as advised by Mr John Slater, Independent Examiner.
  1. The aim of the short consultation exercise was to seek comments on the content of the proposed changes suggested by the Independent Examiner following the Public Hearing. As this was to be a short consultation period it was agreed at the hearing that only those who had commented previously at Regulation 16 stage would be invited to submit further comments, and specifically related to the changes made following the hearing. The proposed changes were available to view on Fylde Borough Council’s website and St. Annes Town Council website.

Regulation Requirements/Background

  1. St Annes Town Council formally commenced work on their Plan in 2013 following the approval of the Neighbourhood Area on 2 July 2013. The Plan was submitted by St. Annes Town Council for the whole area of the Parish Council. Therefore in accordance with Section 61G of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Localism Act 2011), the Town Council is considered the relevant body.
  1. The Plan has been prepared by a Steering Group working on behalf of St Annes Town Council. During June and July 2015 the Pre-Submission version of the Plan was subject to a six week formal consultation (Regulation 14). Just 21 written representations were received and in general these comments were positive and supportive. Fylde Council’s consultation response to the St Anne’s Neighbourhood Development Plan was submitted to the Town Council on 30 July 2015.
  1. From this exercise, further work on the Plan was undertaken by the Town Council, with input from various members of staff at Fylde Council, including a number of workshop events, to take account of those representations which were deemed appropriate by the Steering Group. The Submission Draft: January 2016 version of the Plan was then produced and formally received by Fylde Council on 25 January 2016. As part of that submission the following documents were also submitted, including:
  • Submission Neighbourhood Development Plan;
  • Design Guide;
  • Design Guide Companion Guide;
  • Basic Condition Statement;
  • Sustainability Report;
  • Neighbourhood Profile;
  • Report of Consultation;
  • Local Green Space Justification Report and Appendix 1 map;
  • Policies Map x 3; and
  • Delivery Strategy
  1. In accordance with the requirements of Regulations 16, Fylde Council as the local planning authority published all the related Neighbourhood Development Plan documents as part of the Submission version for a six week public consultation, which started on Thursday 11 February, and ended on Thursday 24 March 2016.
  1. During this period Fylde Borough Council in consultation with St. Annes Town Council, formally appointed Mr John Slater BA (Hons), DMS, MRTPI, as Independent Examiner for the Neighbourhood Development Plan examination. All documents relating to the Plan were submitted to Mr Slater, including:
  • Neighbourhood Map
  • Consultation Statement
  • The Proposed Neighbourhood Development Plan and all associated documents
  • Copies of all representations received.
  1. On receipt of this material Mr Slater carried out an initial assessment of the plan and an unaccompanied site visit to St. Annes. One of the examiner’s first tasks is to determine whether the examination should proceed via the normal route, namely through an examination of the written material and the representations or whether a public hearing is required should they feel the need to call for further submissions to allow them to adequately examine matters in greater detail.
  1. Following on from the initial assessment, Mr Slater considered that it would be necessary to hear further submissions on a number of issues and set out a number of questions he wished to explore at a public hearing, along with a specific list of people, who he wished to invite to the hearing.
  1. Therefore, on 7 June 2016, following invites to those specifically asked to attend and advertisement in the local newspaper, both the Borough Council’s and the Town Council’s websites, a public hearing was held to address the issues raised by Mr Slater.
  1. At the hearing Mr Slater heard responses from all parties involved, including members of the public who were invited to speak if they wanted to address a specific issue. Following on from this process it was agreed that the Town Council would re-word a number of policies and justification text in order to keep ownership of the policy and in order to address the issues raised. The Town Council were given four weeks to make the amendments, following which a consultation on the proposed amendments/changes would follow.

Consultation process

  1. A short consultation was undertaken and following the advice of Mr Slater only those who were present at the public hearing and those who had submitted comments/responses following the previous consultation (Regulation 16) were invited to make further comments on the proposed changes. The amendments were also posted on the Borough Council’s website and a press release was sent out.
  1. A total of 30 consultees where notified of the submitted amendments, together with details of how long the consultation was for, where to view the documentation and how to make a representation.
  1. Representations could be made in writing, and either posted or emailed to the Planning Policy team.

Response and Comments

  1. In total 7 responses were received as part of the consultation, all of which were received via email. Responses were submitted by:

List of Responses / Reference No.
Cassidy & Ashton on behalf of Oyston Estates / NP/SANP/16/02286
Emery Planning on behalf of Ideal Corporate Solutions Ltd / NP/SANP/16/02288
Environment Agency / NP/SANP/16/02287
Lancashire County Council - Planning / NP/SANP/16/02284
Nathanial Lichfield Partners on behalf of Balfour Beatty Investments Ltd / NP/SANP/16/02285
Natural England / NP/SANP/16/02290
The Theatres Trust / NP/SANP/16/02272
  1. The Theatres Trust, Environment Agency and Natural England raised no specific comments or objections to the proposed new changes to the Plan. Lancashire County Council referred back to their previous comments with specific reference to the comments in relation to the Schools Planning section which requests a slight textual change.
  1. A response from the agents working on behalf of Ideal Corporate Solutions Ltd., support the majority of the changes, and have made further suggested changes, however their main outstanding objection relates to the continued proposal to designate the former Valentines Kennels site as Local Green Space (LGS) under Policy EN2 (site ref: 31), which they consider is not justified and does not meet the relevant tests.
  1. The owners of Blackpool Airport (Balfour Beatty) are broadly supportive of the policies within the Neighbourhood Plan of relevance to the Airport. However, they have reiterated their previous comments and request that Policy SS1 is as they consider there is a clear expectation in the Blackpool Enterprise Zone business case that aviation functions will be re-sited into Zone B (within the Green Belt) and that aviation functions will be removed from Zone A, and that as currently drafted, Policy SS1 is inconsistent with these expectations and objectives as it could be interpreted in a way that seeks to prevent non-aviation related development in Zone A outside of the Green Belt and to presume against re-sited aviation functions in Zone B (Green Belt).
  1. Comments made by agents working on behalf of Oyston Estates, support the majority of the changes to the settlement boundary and to Policy EN1 and the textual reference to the outward growth of the town, however some of the comments made previously remain unresolved.

Next steps

  1. Copies of all representations received as part of this short consultation exercise have been sent to Mr Slater, who will now consider theseadditional comments/responses alongside previous comments received and notes/comments made at the public hearing.
  1. Following on from this it is expected that Mr Slater will then submit his final report to the Borough Council on his findings following the Examination process. As an Independent Examiner Mr Slater must make one of the following recommendations:

a)thattheNeighbourhoodPlanshouldproceedtoReferendum,onthebasisthatitmeetsalllegalrequirements;

b)thattheNeighbourhoodPlan,asmodified,shouldproceedtoReferendum;

c)thattheNeighbourhoodPlandoesnotproceedtoReferendum,onthebasisthatitdoesnot meettherelevantlegalrequirements.

IfrecommendingthattheNeighbourhoodPlanshouldgoforwardtoReferendum, he mustthenconsiderwhetherornottheReferendumAreashouldextendbeyondthe St. Annes on the Sea NeighbourhoodAreatowhichthePlanrelates.

1

Appendix A: List of Respondents and Summary of Comments

Consultee / Summary of Comment / Council Response
The Theatres Trust / The Theatres Trust does not object to the proposed changes to proposed policy CH2: Community facilities. It continues to reflect item 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services that the community needs, planning policies and decisions should plan for the use of shared space and guard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities. Also to ensure that established facilities and services are retained and able to develop for the benefit of the community. / Comments noted.
A copy of the full response has been submitted to Mr John Slater, the Independent Examiner.
Natural England / Natural England has no comment to make on the St Anne's on the Sea Neighbourhood Development Plan potential changes to policies and justification text. / Comments noted.
A copy of the full response has been submitted to Mr John Slater, the Independent Examiner.
Lancashire County Council – Strategy and Policy / Following the amendments/changes as suggested at the Public Hearing 07/07/2016, Please can the comments under the heading Schools Planning as submitted in the original response be acknowledged and/or addressed.
Original comments:
Schools Planning
Regarding school planning, please note that it would be beneficial to see Education Provision as a heading within p16-17 Chapter 4: Key Issues - Summary of key issues. We would also like to see mention of education provision on p18-19 Chapter 5: The objectives and vision of the neighbourhood Plan in the 'what we aim to achieve' section. / Comments noted.
A copy of the full response has been submitted to Mr John Slater, the Independent Examiner.
Cassidy & Ashton on behalf of their clients: Oyston Estates / I refer to the recent Amendments to the Neighbourhood Plan and set out my brief comments below:
p. 22 We would support the acknowledgement that the settlement boundary may change further as the LP evolves.
p. 26 We support changes to Policy EN1 which accepts that there are circumstances where development can take place on sites of biological and geological importance subject to meeting certain criteria including potentially according with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. The introduction of a series of tests makes the operation of the policy more transparent and usable in practice.
p. 67 We support the deletion of the reference to the outward growth of the town. This statement previously undermined the ability of the Local Plan to identify suitable sites for housing and would have contradicted the changes made on p. 22 and identified above. The deletion of this section means that the identification of any additional sites that may be required can properly be made through the Local Plan process.
I trust that these comments will be forwarded to the Examiner.
For the avoidance of doubt our previous comments have not been fully addressed by these amendments and remain unresolved. / Comments noted.
A copy of the full response has been submitted to Mr John Slater, the Independent Examiner.
Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners on behalf of their clients: Balfour Beatty Investments Ltd / On behalf of Balfour Beatty as owners of Blackpool Airport, we are commenting on the initial amendments proposed by the Town Council to the draft St Anne’s-on-the-Sea Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) following the public hearing on 07 June 2015.
The changes proposed to Policy SS1 Of the NDP, which relates to Blackpool Airport, do not raise concerns with Balfour Beatty and are helpful points of clarification.
We note that the Examiner is yet to make amendments to the NDP and we, therefore, reiterate the comments made within our previous representations. In particular, we wish to ensure Policy SS1 is not clear in its meaning and aligns with the Enterprise Zone’s objectives for the area. Our previous comments sought to:
Remove the reference to ‘open lands’ at the Airport; and
Align the policy approach with the Enterprise Zone objectives and the EZ Masterplan when prepared.
The term ‘open lands’ is ambiguous. Policy SS1, as drafted, states that the open lands are identified on the Policies Map though the map does not use the term £open lands”. If the term were to be applied to the cross hatched “Blackpool Airport SS1” area, as defined on the Policies map, then it would include the area of the land to the south of Squires Gate outside of the Green Belt. It is difficult to see logic in that area being described as 2open lands”. As currently drafted, however, it is possible for that area to be interpreted in such a way.
As explained in our previous representations, the Business Case that underpins the Enterprise Zone status shows the airport corridor divided into a number of Zones. Exacts from the business case document, which show the plan of these zones, are presented on the website of the Blackpool, Fylde & Wyre Economic Development Company, in respect of the Blackpool Airport Enterprise Zone. We attach the homepage from the website for ease of reference. There is a clear expectation in the EZ business case that aviation functions will be re-sited into Zone B (within the Green Belt) and that aviation functions will be removed from Zone A. As currently drafted, Policy SS1 is wholly inconsistent with these expectations and objectives as it could be interpreted in a way that seeks to prevent non-aviation related development in Zone A outside of the Green Belt and to presume against re-sited aviation functions in Zone B (Green Belt).
We therefore, request that the changes to SS1, set out in our letter 23 March are made to the policy. / Comments noted.
A copy of the full response has been submitted to Mr John Slater, the Independent Examiner.
Emery Planning on behalf of their clients: Ideal Corporate Solutions Ltd. / We attended the examination hearing for the St Anne’s on the Sea Neighbourhood Development Plan (SANP) on the 7th June 2016 on behalf of Ideal Corporate Solutions Ltd (Liquidators of Rushcliffe Properties Limited). Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the potential changes to the plan. We understand that these have been proposed by the Neighbourhood Plan group, but are not yet endorsed by the examiner. Our comments are made on that basis, having regard to the discussions at the hearing.
Our main outstanding objection relates to the continued proposal to designate the former Valentines Kennels site as Local Green Space (LGS) under Policy EN2 (site ref: 31), which we consider is not justified and does not meet the relevant tests. However a number of other matters were debated at the hearings, and we therefore comment accordingly.
Policy GP1
We note the changes made in respect of previously developed land. National policy is clear on encouraging the re-use of land that has been previously developed, provided that it is not of high environmental value. The Framework does not distinguish between sites inside or beyond settlement boundaries. We therefore have no further comments to make.
As established at the hearings, the OAN for the borough has not been established, and further sites beyond the settlement boundaries may be required depending upon the outcomes of the emerging Local Plan process. It was also established that the SANP has not sought to identify a specific housing requirement, and therefore a sufficient supply of housing land. We therefore recommend at the hearings that additional text is inserted to clarity that the boundary will need to be reviewed if additional sites are needed to meet the development requirements set in the future Fylde Local Plan.
We had previously understood that the only amendments to the settlement boundary would be for commitments, and that all other amendments would be made through the emerging Local Plan when it allocates housing sites to meet the OAN. However at the hearing the examiner suggested a potential change to the settlement boundary at Wildings Lane to take account of a garden to the west of the lane. In that context it would also be reasonable to amend the settlement boundary to include our client’s site at Wildings Lane (former Valentines Kennels), which is surrounded by the committed Kensington development on 3 sides, and is previously developedland. It is therefore illogical for it to be designated as ‘open countryside’, when it clearly does notmeet that description.
Policy EN1
The new policy does not follow the approach described in paragraph 113 of the Framework, whichrequires criteria based policies, distinguishing between the hierarchyof designations. The openingparagraph and points a-c appear to broadly mirror the Habitats Directive derogation tests (i.e.need for thedevelopment, alternatives and maintenance the conservation status). As currentlydrafted the policy would appear to apply to all designated sites irrespective of their status- andindeed non-designated sites according to the subsequent list of sites to which the policy wouldapply. Consequently we consider that the new wording is actually a step backwards in meetingthe basic conditions when compared to the original policy.
The examiner will recall the debate over our client’s site at Valentines Kennels. The site is identifiedon the proposals map as part of a Biological Heritage site, despite the reasons for the designationno longer applying to the site, and there being no statutory objections on ecology grounds forrefusing the recent planning application. There is clearly potential for development to comeforward within the designations covered by Policy EN1.
We therefore recommend that the original policy is amended as follows:
International, national and localDesignated sites of biological and geological
conservation importance will be preserved and protected from any significant adverseimpactseffects of development, having regard to the hierarchy of designated sitesand thean up-to-date assessment of the site and the potential for appropriatemitigation (where necessary). The level of protection should be proportionate to thestatus of the designation, and give appropriate weight to their importance and thecontribution that they make to wider ecological networks. Any adverse impacts will beweighed against the benefits of the proposed development.
Policy EN2
The former site of Valentines Kennels site at Wildings Lane (site ref: 31) is still listed as LGS in theamended list. We strongly object to this on the basis that the evidence and justification is whollyinsufficient. We have set out our case in our representations and at the hearings.
We note that a number of LGS designations have been removed. However no explanation orevidence is given as to why some sites have been deleted, and others remain. We still haveconcerns about the overall approach taken to LGS.
The amended policy wording rightly refers to only permitting development at an LGS where thereare very special circumstances, but adds: “…where it can be clearly demonstrated that thedevelopment will not conflict with the purpose of the designation.” This addition is not consistentwith national policy, and should be deleted.
We also note that whilst the list of LGS’s has been amended, the main policies map has not. This will need to be amended. Given that the policy now rightly distinguishes between LGS and open space for the purpose of paragraph 74 of the Framework, to provide clarity we consider that theproposals map should also properly distinguish between the two.
Policy CH1
The policy still requires developers to prepare and submit “supporting infrastructure information… ‘inconsultation with the Town Council and relevant providers”. We remain concerned that this is apotentiallycumbersome requirement in a development plan policy. Ultimately even if the processis not adhered to, if the application is acceptable then any conflict with this policy should not resultin a refusal. In any event the parties are likely to be statutory consultees on any application.
Policy DH1
That policy states that “All development must have regard to the principles and general guidanceset out in the St. Anne’s Design Guide, and contribute to the vision of St. Anne’s as a “Garden Townby the Sea”. It was confirmed that the Design Guide will take the form of an SPD to be adopted bythe Council, which is appropriate for a document of that type. This should be reflected in thepolicy.
Policy HOU1
The modification to Policy HOU1 is supported. However we consider that the plan should be clearthat the re-use of all previously developed land should be encouraged, in accordance with (andsubject to) the policies of the Framework. We therefore suggest a modification to the justificationtext as follows:
The council supports the sustainable development of the town, making the best use ofexisting previously developed and urban land.
Policy HOU2
We support the deletion of Policy HOU2.
Policy HOU4
Our comments in respect of Policy DH1 apply equally to Policy HOU4. The Design Guide is to beadopted as an SPD.
The proposed changes do not in our view reflect the discussion at the hearings. It is unnecessaryand unjustified for a policy to require the submission of an illustrative masterplan to determine anoutline planning application. The need for such information must be considered on the merits ofeach site. Whilst in some cases a development will need to follow strict parameters established atthe outline stage, in many cases strict parameters are not required and an illustrative masterplan atthe outline stage would simply be an abortive process.
Policy SU1
The policy should state that SuDS ‘should be’ incorporated instead of ‘must be’. SuDS is not alwaysthe most appropriate drainage solution, and a range of considerations (such as ground conditions)need to be considered.
Policy SU2
We support the proposed change, which reflects the discussion at the hearings.
This concludes our comments on the proposed changes. Should you require any additionalinformation, please do not hesitate to contact us. / Comments noted.
A copy of the full response has been submitted to Mr John Slater, the Independent Examiner.
Environment Agency / We have reviewed amended information and, insofar as it relates to our remit, we have no further comments to add to our previous response dated 24 March 2016. / Comments noted.
A copy of the full response has been submitted to Mr John Slater, the Independent Examiner.

1