Decision on new Leyland estate that 'rolls a dice with children's lives'

Plans for a new estate in Leyland have been kicked out by councillors amid concerns that they would pose a danger to children walking to and from school.

The 23-home development proposed for land off Cocker Lane in Moss Side was rejected by South Ribble Borough Council’s planning committee after locals lined up to warn of what they said would be the risk to school kids using the narrow route as a cut-through to class – as well as to the residents living there.

Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service after the meeting, The Friends of Cocker Lane group said it was “relieved” by the decision – but was preparing to “fight on” in the belief that those behind the blueprint will now launch an appeal.

The proposal was ultimately refused on the basis it would have a “detrimental” impact on the character of the immediate area, after committee members were advised by council planning officers that it would be difficult to defend a rejection on road safety grounds, because highways bosses at Lancashire County Council were satisfied with the plans.

However, the meeting heard it had taken seven reworkings of the blueprint – over a 15-month period – to persuade the road experts at County Hall that the largely pavement-free route could be made safe for both construction traffic and the increase in vehicles generated by the new homeowners.

The committee was told that as many as 150 children at any one time used Cocker Lane en route to and from Moss Side Primary School – usually walking in the road, because of the absence of a footpath between the junction with Birchwood and the proposed development site.

A highways plan submitted on behalf of the applicant – BW SIPP Trustees Ltd. – proposed the creation of continuous pavement on the south side of Cocker Lane, to replace the narrow grass verge that currently exists – and the removal of the equivalent strip of greenery on the north side to allow the carriageway to be slightly widened.

However, local resident Adrian Dean said the proposed 1.8m-wide footway was not enough to “safely accommodate the hundreds of school children that walk the lane every school day”.

Mother-of-two Abigail Saunders quoted a comment from Moss Side Primary headteacher Andrew Wright, in which he said the estate created a scenario “where an accident is near-certain to occur involving children, either outside our school or on the roads close by”.

Abigail herself demanded to know of councillors on the committee:  “Are you happy to roll the dice…with my child’s life?”

Meanwhile, Cocker Lane resident Michael Johnson told members of another potentially perilous problem for those living on the side of the road where the route was to be widened.  He said that without the current refuge of the grass verge, anybody trimming their extensive hedgerows would have to do so by standing in the road itself.

Mr. Johnson described it as “a plan that might seem to fit on a piece of paper, but is hazardous in practice”.

“People are outraged and dismayed [by] the location chosen in regards to this highly inappropriate planning application,” he added.

However, Chris Betteridge, the agent for the proposal, said it came with “a number of improvements to Cocker Lane…which will enhance [it] and provide a safer route for all users – not just those of the proposed development”.

He said it would be particularly beneficial for the schoolchildren who currently have “no choice but to walk in the road”.

Meanwhile, the highways consultant acting on behalf of the applicant told the committee that the repeated rethinks surrounding the road layout were a positive – and not the flaw some residents were suggesting.

“It’s normal for several revisions of a scheme to be submitted, which is preferable [to the] first draft being approved without due consideration,” said Mark Devenish, from transport specialists SCP.

South Ribble Borough Council planning case officer Debbie Roberts – who had recommended the application be approved – said children “arguably” should not be encouraged to use Cocker Lane as a thoroughfare in any case, as it means crossing the busy Schleswig Way bypass in order to do so.

However, she added: “If it already happens, we need to make it better – and this scheme can do that.
“The proposals, which include considerable lengths of pavement, must benefit – rather than offer harm – to those children who already pass through dense residential, but unpaved areas of Cocker Lane.”

The meeting also heard that the plot was in an existing built-up area, which meant there was a “presumption” towards allowing it to be developed.

COUNCILLOR CONUNDRUM

Moss Side ward councillor Michael Green said that in his near two decades representing the area, the proposed estate was “probably the most inappropriate application” he had ever seen.

He said the design that had finally been accepted by Lancashire County Council’s highways department “effectively shoehorns the scheme into the locality as tightly as you could possibly imagine”.

Most committee members did not demur from that view, but some did struggle with the stark reality that the county authority no longer had a problem with the plans – and the implications for their collective decision.

Cllr Peter Gabbott said he was left struggling to find “a valid legal planning reason to object on highway safety grounds”.

However, his committee colleague, Phil Smith, said they should “stand by what we think…is right” – regardless of any recommendation to approve.

Cllr Smith – who proposed refusal of the application – said his concerns had only been strengthened by a visit to the site undertaken by members after they deferred a decision on the plans at the last committee meeting.

But Cllr Elaine Stringfellow said her visit to the location – when she had seen children wearing headphones and looking down at their phones while walking in the road – had left her thinking “how much better it would be if there was a pathway there…that was continuous”. That drew murmurs of discontent from a packed public gallery.

However, she found herself in the minority, with Cllr Mary Green considering the proposed path too narrow – especially once rapidly-growing hedges started to encroach upon it.

Cllr Peter Mullineaux added that the length of time it had taken to arrive at the latest iteration of the plans suggested the application had “got problems”.

Permission was refused by six votes to two – albeit on character and visual appearance grounds, rather than the highways concerns that had dominated the debate.