GOOSNARGHSITE EMERY ADV P PLANNINGDOCS

The applicant has looked to redevelop the site for some years. Credit: planning documents

Pendulum swings again for controversial Preston resi

Tipped for approval as recently as May, long-debated plans for 95 homes east of Swainson House Farm head back to committee recommended for refusal due to a shift in the council’s supply situation.

Preston City Council’s planning committee will consider the proposals at its 3 July meeting.

Applicants Gillian Wells, Thomas Swarbrick and Lynn Johnson, advised by Emery Planning, have been looking to develop the site for some years, with two previous proposals for 87 homes meeting with rejection. Initial plans were lodged in 2019.

One of these verdicts was appealed but defeated, also due to Preston’s housing supply creeping over the five-year threshold.

The 2025 episode of this long-running saga saw plans come forward for 95 homes, with 33 of them affordable. A decision was deferred in May, with members requesting a site visit after resolving not to accept the officer recommendation of approval for a scheme that remains hotly contested.

There are strong numbers of objections locally – two parish councils, a city councillor and 72 further parties have registered their opposition.

This is where the situation descended into something approaching farce. As set out in the officer report for the 3 July planning committee meeting, a site visit was scheduled for Monday 2 June, however an insufficient number of members could attend the visit and the subsequent committee meeting to remain quorate – able to make a valid judgment.

At committee on 5 June, members were advised that following a declaration of interest, the committee would not be quorate to consider the application, hence it could not be considered, with consideration kicked back to the 3 July meeting.

A further site visit has been arranged for Monday 30 June, but once again an insufficient number of members are able to attend both that and committee to remain quorate – officers have however found a workaround that will allow determination within the timeframe agreed, so will show a video of the site at committee on 3 July.

For once however, an applicant may not be thankful for an application being dealt with in a timely – if it can be called that – fashion, as officers now report that the council’s five-year housing supply has in the last few weeks changed for the better, meaning refusal is now recommended.

The 10.7-acre application site is to the north of Goosnargh Lane, on the edge of the settlement boundary. Access would come through the next site, where 40 homes were approved in 2019.

Changes to the National Planning Policy Framework are cited in the officer report, with the key point being that the council believes the local housing need figure, rather than that in the core strategy, is the most appropriate to use.

Having now published its Housing Land Position Paper, Preston City Council, using the standard methodology, can demonstrate a 6.7-year housing supply.

Summing up, officers said that the proposed development would be contrary to the hierarchy of locations for focussing growth and investment at urban, brownfield and allocated sites, within key service centres and other defined places.

Your Comments

Read our comments policy

Preston aren’t fit for purpose. How can they go from having less than 5 years supply one month, to 6.7 years the next. The planning officers should be ashamed. The fact how they cannot get members to attend a site visit just about sums Preston up

By Anon

The central government in London decides how many houses must be built locally, and that it interpreted locally as a maximum. The idea is, approve as few houses as you can, because … ?

By Anonymous

Is there any point in a local planning meeting when all that will happen is a government planning officer will overrule any rejection? There is loads of brownfield land to build on instead anyway. Madness!

By Anonymous

If the Government are serious about fixing planning, this sort of thing is where they need to start! How can an officer recommendation change from one week to the next, all because members couldn’t make it to a site visit! Why would any investor look at developing there with that much risk and uncertainty.

By Anonymous

Related Articles

Sign up to receive the Place Daily Briefing

Join more than 13,000+ property professionals and receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Join more than 13,000+ property professionals and sign up to receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox.

By subscribing, you are agreeing to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

"*" indicates required fields

Your Job Field*
Other Regional Publications - Select below
Your Location*