REJECTED 111 Houses On Whittingham Lane In Broughton, Andy Bradshaw, P Planning Documents
This is the site off Whittingham Lane that Bradshaw wants to build 111 houses on. Credit: via planning documents

Preston refuses 111-house project for the third time

Julia Hatmaker

The city council refused to budge on farm owner Andy Bradshaw’s scheme, which sits on 15 acres of open countryside.

The site’s location on designated open countryside off Whittingham Lane in Broughton is the key point of contention.

This new application for outline approval attempted to ease the council’s fears about developing on the land. Consultant Emery Planning argued that the site was landlocked by other developments and the M6 motorway. Therefore, the planning consultant said, the land served no use as open countryside.

However, the council opted to go with its planning officer’s recommendation for refusal, saying on 5 August that regardless, the land was not allocated for housing.

This latest denial is part of the project’s ongoing saga. It initially had been granted consent at a meeting in 2019, because at the time Preston was unable to show it had five years’ worth of land to meet future housing needs. Because of that, the council was accepting applications for developments on land that was not designated for housing.

However, when Preston’s minimum annual housing requirement was recalculated later that year, it no longer had an issue around the lack of residential land. Because of that recalculation, the council opted to re-examine the application, which was still in negotiations regarding section 106 agreements. The proposal was subsequently denied.

In November 2020, Bradshaw tried again to get approval – only to lose once more. An appeal is slated to be heard on that decision this September.

The 111-house development is the second phase of a nearby scheme known as Broughton Park. The first phase of that project is under construction courtesy of Stewart Milne Homes. That company is already committed to building the second phase if approval is ever granted.

Your Comments

Read our comments policy here

What do you mean “ the approval was taken back “? Was it quashed? Or was a committee resolution overturned?

By Edge

Re: Edge – I’ve adjusted the story to clarify the meaning and give more background. The application had been given consent, but was still in section 106 negotiations. When the housing requirements changed, the council opted to re-examine the application and then denied it. Hope that clears it up!

By Julia Hatmaker

“Land locked by other developments” – so no use as open countryside. So how would future residents access their houses – helicopter?

By ChesneyT

When a well informed supposedly professional says land served no use as open countryside this rings alarm bells for our dwindling countryside, developers pockets verse greenbelt, no doubt they will carve up somebody else’s field.

By CBA

State planning is best: A site landlocked by a bulit on site and a motorway has been declared “country-side not to be built on”. What matters common sense? Anyway, those making these decisions already have nice houses, thank you very much. And there are too many empty houses about and houses are too affordable. No need for more houses. Homeless folk can live in tents, right?

By James Yates

No countryside or green belt should be built on.

By Darren born bred.

I love the countryside. I love it so much, in fact, that we should build much more houses there so people can be closer to it.

By SD

@James Yates Nice of the consultant and Milne Homes to offer to build houses for homeless people.

By House builder lolz

Thanks Julia, I thought it might be something like that. Sorry to be pedantic, at least Planners aren’t as bad as lawyers!

By Edge