The Chief Executive
Fylde Borough Council
The Town Hall
St. Anne’s on Sea
FY8 1LW
Dear Sir,
Preferred Options Document Consultation
Ref.
I wish to object to the following sections of the Preferred Options document on which
you have recently consulted Fylde Borough Council residents.
I believe that there may be an oversupply of Employment Land (Chapter 6) within the
policies and the evidence based information may be flawed, if this assumption is
correct then the surplus employment land could be released for housing need thus
negating the need for Greenfield land to be released for housing and employment
development.
I am of the opinion that the housing need figures Chapter 7) are flawed and should be
re-assessed, the Plan, in my view, shows an oversupply as factors common to Fylde
have not been taken into account. I also think that residents should have some say
into how much land we wish to lose to accommodate inward migration of people
wanting to move here to live.
In light of the above I think that housing numbers and sites should be looked at again.
In relation to Policy GD2 Chapter 8, Areas of Separation, the Plan shows an area of
separation between Wrea Green and Kirkham, I believe that this Policy should be
used in other areas of the Borough to ensure separation of settlements.
Policy H3 Paragraph 2, Affordable Housing Policy, this paragraph should be altered
to read “the provision of affordable housing will be to meet the need for those
settlements”. The existing wording states that affordable housing will be located in
Kirkham, Wesham, Freckleton and Lytham St. Annes, as there is no housing allocated
in Freckleton and developers in Lytham St. Annes attempt not to build social housing
within their developments and instead give cash equivalents to provide social housing
elsewhere in the Borough, Kirkham and Wesham will take greater numbers of this
type of housing. This is poor planning and will affect the balance of housing
provision within communities.
I also object most strongly to the inclusion of the sites in Kirkham, Wesham and
Greenhalgh as shown in Option 4 of your Plan, all sites are outside the settlement
boundaries of the towns and village, and the boundary is the By-Pass which is a hard
edge and should be protected.
Kirkham and Wesham have taken a large amount of housing and employment
development during the Plan period 1990’s to date. This has had a huge impact on
the infrastructure of the two towns, if the development shown in Option 4 is accepted
it will cause even more problems for the two towns and will change the character of
these areas for ever. The infrastructure problems already experienced relate to
flooding to highways and homes as a result of poor drainage and sewage provision,
traffic congestion and poor highway safety, increasing demand for school place
provision, delays for access to health and associated services and poor electricity
supply which results in large areas of Kirkham losing power during periods of high
usage.
The site earmarked for housing to the west of the by-pass at Kirkham, is not
sustainable, it does not link to Kirkham and will necessitate journeys, by car, to access
all the facilities including, shops, schools, doctors, dentists and rail. There is no bus
service available.
If this consultation is a genuine attempt to locate housing and employment in areas
supported by the community it should take account of residents’ views, I believe that
Option SL2 should replace Option SL4 as a preferred option in the adopted Plan,
Whyndyke could be delivered in the Plan period will provide a school, roads, bus
routes, shops, cycle lanes and employment land on one site and is sustainable, it will
also meet the housing and employment needs of Blackpool.
Yours sincerely
Name
Address
Postcode
Email