Application reference: 2026/0734/OUT Site: Land to the West of High Lane, Ormskirk, Lancashire Proposal: Outline planning application for up to 375 dwellings (Use Class C3), residential accommodation for older persons (Use Class C2 or C3), a community hub (Use Classes E, F2 and/or sui generis), together with public open space and associated infrastructure (all matters reserved except access)
Dear Sir or Madam,
I object to this application. I live on High Lane, and the application site is within sight of my home; the access proposed to serve up to 375 dwellings would be taken from the road I live on.
My objection rests on four principal grounds. The site is Green Belt, and the applicant's case that it is not inappropriate development rests on judgements the Council has already questioned. The transport case relies on an assumed shift away from car use rather than on conventional trip rates, at a junction the applicant's own modelling shows already operating over capacity. The foul and surface water evidence is expressly preliminary and conceptual. And the proposed density departs from the prevailing density the applicant itself measured.
1. Green Belt
Developer's Argument: The applicant accepts the Site is Green Belt but contends that it falls within a category of development which is not inappropriate, arguing that the Proposed Development utilises grey belt, there is an evidenced unmet need for the development proposed, the development is in a sustainable location and complies with GB8, the 'Golden Rules'. It relies on the absence of a five year housing land supply, and on confining built development to the southern part of the site.
Contention: The proposal engages NPPF Policy GB6 and, through it, the very special circumstances test. The applicant's grey belt case is not made out on the Council's own published evidence, and if it fails the proposal is inappropriate development to which substantial weight against must attach.
Evidence: NPPF Policy GB6 provides that "Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the categories in policy GB7." It continues that "Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposed development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In making this assessment, substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt which would be caused, including harm to its openness." The development plan points the same way: adopted Policy GN1 states that "Development proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed against national policy and any relevant Local Plan policies." and the Local Plan's strategy is that "New development will, except in very special circumstances, take place within settlement boundaries."
The grey belt judgement turns on the Green Belt purposes in NPPF Policy GB2, which include to "Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b. Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another" and to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. The Council's own pre-application response records that officers have "some concerns with regard to potential coalescence with the neighbouring town of Burscough and the setting and special character of Ormskirk as a Historic Town". The Council's 2018 site assessment of this land found the northern boundary to be "very weak with no physical features to demarcate what would be the new Green Belt Boundary", and concluded: "This site would have an impact on the Green Belt and would contribute to additional congestion in Ormskirk town centre. For those reasons there are better options around Ormskirk and Aughton for residential allocations but this site might become appropriate for an allocation of approximately 450 dwellings should other preferred sites be withdrawn." The Council should say plainly whether it now departs from that assessment, and why.
There is further harm to weigh. The site is classified Grade 2 agricultural land, and the applicant's own evidence is that Approximately 17.4ha of the Site is classified as Grade 2 or 3a. This represents about 62% of the area of the Site. Adopted Policy EN2, as summarised in the applicant's Planning Statement, seeks to avoid development on the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a), except where necessary to deliver development allocated within the local plan or strategic infrastructure, or development associated with the agricultural use of the land. This site is not allocated. NPPF Policy N2 is described in the same statement as requiring the applicant to take into account the quality of agricultural land and if significant development of agricultural land is necessary, use areas of poorer quality land where possible. That is a further harm to be set against the benefits, not a neutral factor.
2. Transport impact and highway safety
Developer's Argument (network capacity): The Transport Assessment concludes that there would be no significant highway impact across the majority of the day. There are certain parts of the network which are forecast to experience increases in journey time, but these are not material. Trip generation is derived from a method which sets the desired outcomes of a new development, then identifies placemaking and mobility interventions to realise those outcomes. This is opposed to predicting future demand to provide capacity.
Contention: The junction modelling submitted with the application does not support the conclusion drawn from it, and the trip forecasts depend on behavioural outcomes that are assumed rather than secured. NPPF Policy TR6 requires the Council to test both.
Evidence: The applicant's own 2034 modelling of the A59 County Road / Aughton Street roundabout shows one arm already operating at a ratio of flow to capacity of 1.11 with a maximum delay of 227.73 seconds and level of service F in the morning peak without the development, worsening to a ratio of 1.12, a delay of 242.83 seconds and a queue of 29.6 PCU with it. In the evening peak a second arm moves from a ratio of 1.03 and 128.19 seconds of delay to 1.05 and 142.57 seconds. The junction as a whole moves from level of service D to level of service E in the evening peak once the development is added, and operates at level of service E in the morning peak. Development traffic is therefore being added to a junction that is already failing. The Council's 2018 assessment anticipated exactly this, noting that traffic from this site would be likely to travel through Ormskirk town centre where there is most congestion and the borough's only Air Quality Management Area. From my own home I see High Lane back up at school run times, which is consistent with that record.
NPPF Policy TR6 requires that travel plans identify "fallback options if initial measures do not deliver the expected outcomes", and that proposals "be refused if they would have a severe adverse impact on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion, including cumulative impacts), or an unacceptable impact on highway safety". Where the trip forecasts rest on assumed mode shift, the Council cannot be satisfied on that test unless it knows what happens if the shift does not occur. The bus offer is relevant here: the Transport Assessment's own summary records four services per hour on a typical weekday, falling to one on a Sunday.
Developer's Argument (access and pedestrian provision): A single vehicular access is proposed from the A59, with required visibility splays of 2.4 metres x 43 metres, which is appropriate for a 30mph road, and an emergency-only vehicular access is proposed from Maudsley Terrace.
Contention: The visibility standard adopted depends on the speed limit at the access, and the pedestrian environment described in the submitted documents is not internally consistent.
Evidence: The Transport Assessment records that the A59 High Lane has an approximate width of 6.9m and, in the vicinity of the Site, is subject to the national speed limit to the east and a 30mph speed limit to the west. It also states that the A59 "benefits from street lighting and a footway along the southern side of the road", while elsewhere describing footways on both sides. My own experience of walking here is that footway provision along stretches of High Lane is not continuous. I ask the Council and the highway authority to confirm the speed limit in force at the exact access location and the visibility standard properly applicable to it, and to verify the extent and continuity of footway along the site frontage before accepting that the walking and cycling case relied upon under NPPF Policy TR3 and NPPF Policy TR4 is made out.
3. Drainage, sewerage and infrastructure capacity
Developer's Argument: The site lies entirely within Flood Zone 1, with isolated pockets of risk of surface water flooding, and the applicant relies on a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment and Conceptual Surface Water and Foul Water Drainage Strategies.
Contention: A preliminary assessment and conceptual strategies are not a sufficient basis on which to conclude that foul and surface water capacity exists, in a town the adopted Local Plan identifies as infrastructure constrained.
Evidence: The Local Plan records that both Ormskirk and Burscough are constrained by waste water treatment infrastructure and could both be affected by the impact of new development on highways congestion, and consultation on the plan identified sewerage and surface water issues as an Ormskirk-specific concern. NPPF Policy F8 requires that sustainable drainage systems, in the case of proposals for major development, "take account of advice from the Lead Local Flood Authority". The fields along the site's boundary with High Lane flood in most winters in my experience, and water runs onto the lane. I ask that no permission issue unless and until United Utilities and the Lead Local Flood Authority have confirmed in writing that foul and surface water capacity exists for 375 dwellings and a care home of the order of circa 72 units, and that a full rather than preliminary assessment is required.
4. Biodiversity
Developer's Argument: The applicant reports that the metric has demonstrated that the Proposed Development would result in 31.74% habitat net gain, 21.07% hedgerow net gain and 13.07% watercourse net gain, with a separate area of approximately 5.55 hectares to provide dedicated habitat mitigation for pink-footed geese.
Contention: The gains claimed do not answer the prior question under NPPF Policy N6, which is whether effects on internationally designated sites have been assessed at all.
Evidence: The applicant's own evidence is that the Site sits within Natural England's SSSI Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for Martin Mere, Burscough SSSI which underpins Martin Mere SPA/Ramsar, and that the Site supports SPA and non-SPA wintering bird species together with breeding skylark, lapwing, song thrush and reed bunting. NPPF Policy N6 provides that proposals affecting a site of international importance should be refused unless "An appropriate assessment has concluded that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site", and it "applies to development on land inside or outside a designated area, if it would have an impact on the identified biodiversity or geodiversity value of the area concerned." The list of application documents set out in the applicant's Planning Statement does not appear to include a Habitats Regulations Assessment. If none has been carried out, the Council cannot lawfully conclude that this policy is satisfied.
5. Density, layout and quantum of development
Developer's Argument: The applicant states that The average density across the development will be circa 38 dwellings per hectare (dph). 38 dwellings per hectare is considered to be an appropriate density given the Site's location. It also reflects the surrounding areas which are of a medium-high density.
Contention: That assertion is contradicted by the applicant's own survey of local density, and the proposed heights exceed the prevailing form.
Evidence: The Design and Access Statement records that the settlement to the south has a density of 31 dwellings per hectare, and that Other local areas assessed were approximately 30-31 dwellings per hectare. The proposal is therefore some 23 per cent above the measured prevailing density, not a reflection of it. On height, the surrounding dwellings are typically two storeys in height, whereas the parameters would permit a maximum height of 13 metres in the centre of the site. NPPF Policy DP3 requires that "Development proposals should respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and its setting), so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings", and the third paragraph of that policy provides for refusal where, without clear justification, a proposal conflicts with that requirement. NPPF Policy L3 requires efficient use of land to be judged taking account of, among other things, "the availability of infrastructure (including that supporting sustainable transport modes) and its scope for improvement, a site's connectivity and the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places". On the transport and drainage evidence set out above, the infrastructure limb of that test is not met at the quantum proposed.
For these reasons I ask that planning permission be refused. If the Council is nevertheless minded to approve, I ask that no decision issue before the Lead Local Flood Authority, United Utilities and the highway authority have each confirmed no objection, and that any permission secure the sustainable transport measures relied upon in the trip forecasts, with monitoring and fallback measures, by planning obligation rather than by aspiration.
Please notify me of the decision on this application.
Yours faithfully,
Margaret Ellis High Lane, Ormskirk, L39 2AT