South Ribble Borough Council
Planning Committee
Thursday, 26th March, 2026 – Transcript
This is a follow up to the post with the YouTube video of the March Planning Committee Meeting, where the main topic was the planning application 07/2025/00922/FUL. This is related to the Land Off Victoria Road, Higher Walton Road, Chorley Road and Grove Road, Walton-le-Dale, and the Preston and South Ribble Flood Defence Scheme.
South Ribble Borough Council
Planning Committee:
Thursday, 26th
March 2026
Recording started at 13:53 (13 minutes, 53 seconds)
Transcript
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
All right. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this meeting of the planning committee, Thursday, the 26th of March, 2026. My name is Caleb Tomlinson. I am the Councillor for Bamber Bridge West and I am also the chair of this committee.
Everyone please be aware you are being live streamed to YouTube and people will be watching us. So let’s treat each
other with our normal Thank you councel our normal friendly behavior. Okay. If you’re attending the meeting because you’re a member of the public who has actually registered to speak, please note you have a time limit of four minutes. You’ll be timed and when the four minutes is up, I will inform you and I expect you to tie up and finish. Voting will be undertaken by the electronic voting system. When prompted, committee members should press the button to indicate whether they are in favor, against, or wish to abstain on any votes taken. and the outcome of any votes will be shown on the screens around the room and confirmed by our legal officer Shushma once completed.
Please could you make sure your mobile phones are either on silent or switched off. Uh, we’re not anticipating a fire drill this evening, but if the alarm does go off, the emergency exits are just there.
Okay. Thank you everyone. And I’d just like to make a point of welcoming back Councillor Mrs. Green. We’re glad you’re better. Much glad you’re better and you’ve been missed. So welcome back. Okay. So thanks everyone. If we can now introduce each other starting with the lady on my left. Thank you.
[Speaker Elizabeth Thorber]
Thank you chair. I’m Elizabeth Thorber head of planning and enforcement.
[Speaker Elaine Stringfellow]
I’m Elaine Stringfellow, Councillor for Lostock Hall ward and vice chair of the committee.
[Speaker Debbie Roberts]
Good evening. Debbie Roberts, development management team leader.
[Speaker James Gleason]
Councillor James Gleason, Coupe Green Gregson Lane.
[Speaker Angela Turner]
Councillor Angela Turner, Penwortham Broadoak Ward.
[Speaker Chris Lomax]
Chris Lomax, Walton le Dale East.
[Speaker Phil Smith]
Good evening, Councillor Phil Smith and I represent New Longton and Hutton East.
[Speaker Peter Pillinger]
Good evening Councillor Peter Pillinger representing Buckshaw and Warden and ward.
[Speaker Mary Green]
Good evening Councillor Mary Green council for Moss Side and Midge Hall.
[Speaker Hayden Williams]
Hayden Williams Councillor for Leyland Central.
[Speaker Ben Story]
Ben Story, Democratic member services officer.
[Speaker Sushma Nayee]
Good evening Sushma Nayee. I’m the legal adviser for this committee today.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay, thanks for that everyone. Moving on to agenda item number two.
Apologies for absence. We don’t have any. And agenda item number three. Do we have any declarations of interest on tonight’s agenda?
No. Okay. Thanks for that. Agenda item number four, minutes of the meeting held on the 12th of February, 2026. I have
read them and I need there to be an an amendment made to them. Because, committee members present it has omitted Councillor James Gleason and that the reason for that is because he’s so quiet that sometimes you just forget he’s here. But anyway, so I’ll get them amended. Can I have a second please?
Councillor Smith, thank you very much. I am going to sign those off with that amendment.
Moving on to agenda item five, appeal decisions. Lizzie, if you could fill us in with any details you have. Thank you.
[Speaker Elizabeth Thorber]
Thank you, chair. Yes, we have two appeal decisions this week. The first one is the land adjacent to Woodlands on Church Lane in Preston. This was a permission in principle for the erection of up to nine self-build dwellings and that appeal has been dismissed. The inspector found that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when reading as a, sorry, when read as a whole and the framework and material considerations did not outweigh that the decision should be taken um to uphold the appeal.
The second one is one, which I’m sure members will be familiar with. It’s the land north of Cocker Lane. The outline planning permission for up to 23 dwellings. This one was received and came into the office a couple of days ago. The appeal was upheld and as such the planning permission has been granted.
The inspector found that there would be an inevitable change of character and appearance of the site and more informal and semifor semi-rural nature of the final stretch of cocka lane. Nonetheless, it would not be out of keeping with the established pattern of development in the area. And although details of the layout of the site are not to be assessed at this stage because it’s outline, it’s apparent that the proposal would be set out as um a no-3 road comparable to others off Cocker Lane. So the inspector found that they there was no reason for the um proposed dwellings not to be designed to respond sympathetically to the varied and bespoke design of those nearby. Um they also found that there would be an increased vehicle movements along Cocker Lane. However, given the number of dwellings that it already serves, including those beyond the site access, such an increase would not be materially harmful to the character or tranquility of the area. Overall, the inspector found that the proposal would assimilate into its surroundings and would be an acceptable form of development.
That was therefore upheld with the conditions as set out. And, there was also a cost request from the applicant which luckily the inspector found that the costs were refused. So there was no cost order made on that one. Thank you chair.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay. Yeah, thanks for that Liz.
Some good news and bad news but there you go.
[Application for works associated with the Preston and South Ribble Flood Risk Management Scheme]
Okay let’s move on to agenda item number six. Land off Victoria Road Higher Walton Road Chorley Road and Grove Road Walton le Dale.
Debbie, if you would like to present this item. Thanks.
[Speaker Debbie Roberts]
Thank you, chair. It’s going a bit slower than I expected.
Hang on. Sorry about this. I’m amazed they didn’t get costume.
Right. Let’s give this a whirl. I haven’t got that on my screen, but I can manage.
Okay, the application is for works associated with the Preston and South Ribble Flood Risk Management Scheme and we’re looking at areas three and four.
It comprises in summary construction of a new flood defense wall on Victoria Road. That’s section 3C in your report.
Flood defense embankment and compound at Blue Bridge, which is section 4 C. A flood wall to the rear of properties on
Chorley Road which is section 4F and a temporary construction compound at the Walton le Dale Park and Ride which is is in your report as the main compound.
There’s also mentioned a temporary satellite compound and that’s shown on plans at Blue Bridge but that’s permitted development and it doesn’t need planning permission. Full details are of each section in your report, but I’ll summarize each as we go along, hopefully.
Going backwards now.
Okay, so this is Victoria Road. In summary, the application is for replacement and raising of flood defense walls, a viewing panel, refurbishment of public realm, some of which is permitted development, and an inset seating area.
There’s already a seating area there, but it’s upgrade of that. There are similar works to the rear of King’s Croft and Calbertt Court, which is just round onto Church Brow from Victoria Road. On the slide you can see there is a visualization on the top and in the bottom left the one on the bottom right the actual defenses that have gone in in Preston and Pen with them. Uh phases one and two are complete as far as I’m aware and they’ve they’ve been really successful.
There are some temporary road closures and rearrangements agreed with Lancaster County Council but they’re under separate planning permissions and licenses. They’re not part of this determination.
Sorry, the screen I can see is nothing like the one you can see. Okay, these are views of Victoria Road embankment.
There would be a loss of 21 lime trees along Victoria Road. Now the Environment Agency’s done a lot of work looking into alternatives, but for technical environmental and safety constraints are there and and it’s not possible to retain them.
Any work that’s necessary for the flood defenses would leave trees unstable and there’s a public safety risk.
There is however across the site across the river at Fishwick Bottoms if I can just jump back if it works. No, we’re going forwards. God, right, you can’t quite see it, but across the river there’s a woodland um on that that slide, the top left hand where the third blue arrow is on the right hand side. Fishwick Bottoms is has benefited already from 8,500 trees. It’s not a typo. Including 30 specimen trees. They are across the Ribble. We have nowhere in South Ribble that’s big enough or close enough to be able to mitigate and this mitigation’s already gone in for Preston and Penwortham sections. We’ve added to it. They are clearly visible from from the river already and they’re only little, but they are clearly visible. That more than compensates for the the tree loss.
Our arborist is of the opinion that it’s unavoidable, but given the critical nature of the flood management scheme, the works are acceptable. The developer also wants to buy biodiversity net gain credits to be used offsite. So, overall it exceeds a statutory requirement in terms of environmental protection.
Okay, just a photograph of the drinking fountain on Victoria Road. It’s not listed, but it is a non-designated heritage asset. So, it will be removed, stored safely, cleaned up, and replaced once works have completed.
Moving on to Chorley Road. A defense wall will be put on to the back of 5979 Cholley Road. You can see the visualization. It’s in there’s a road haulage company shares the yard with it.
That is the existing situation. So there’s no flood defense at all. It’s just around those terrace houses.
I’m sorry about this. The slides are going all over the show.
Oh, come on. Okay.
Section 4C, Blue Bridge. The application proposes an earth embankment with a 3 metre wide access track along its top. The embankment only be 1.1 metre high, but it would be 3 and a half metre wide at the crest for stability as much as anything.
The satellite compound would be in the adjacent field, which you can see on the bottom slide that doesn’t require planning permission, but the embankment will be you you can see on the left hand pointer along that strip. It is a public right away but Blue Bridge fell away I believe a couple of years ago during a storm. Lancashire County Council aren’t don’t have too many issues about the public right away being diverted for a short period, because there is access to nowhere at the minute until the bridge is rebuilt.
Okay, that’s just a a slide showing you the embankment. It’s not very clear, but you you get the gist. On the left hand side of that slide is where the compound will be. It is only a satellite compound just for when the the work’s ongoing at Blue Bridge.
And last but not least, we’ve got the main site compound which is on the park and ride center at the Capitol Centre.
There is a scheduled ancient monument on the sorry on the grass to the right of that picture. It won’t be affected in any way whatsoever.
The area that they’re proposing isn’t well used. I’ve been to site there were lots of people lots of buses and not a soul on that section so that we’ve no no problem with that.
The plan is for office and welfare cabins all within a secure boundary.
The eastern part of Victoria road and blue bridge are in the green belt. There is a policy assessment in the report but it does benefit from green belt exception.
Regardless, they can demonstrate very special circumstances in in terms of outweighing any harm. Harm is considered limited, but the benefits are are significant on this one. We have representation in the report. Two objections to engineering design of the scheme and the need for the defenses at public cost.
It’s very unlikely the Environment Agency would enter into something that’s so expensive, so difficult if they didn’t feel it was justified. They have also provided answers to the technical question in terms of the engineered design and they’re raised in
section seven of your report. We’re satisfied with the response. We’ve looked at them carefully and on that basis we would recommend approval with conditions. Thank you chair.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay. Thanks for your presentation Debbie. Thanks for that. Right. We do have two registered PE speakers in objection to this application. So we have a David Marginson. Please if you’d like to come up to the microphone.
Yeah, that’s great. Yeah.
[Speaker David Marginson]
If I can just get ready. Don’t m…
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Yeah.
[Speaker David Marginson]
Just one moment. I’ll just get my documents out.
Right. Just to say I’m David Marginson.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Oh, is there a seat there, David?
[Speaker David Marginson]
Oh, do I sit down?
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Yeah. Yeah, absolutely.
[Speaker David Marginson]
Right.
[Speaker ???]
Be comfortable.
[Speaker David Marginson]
Right. Just to say I’m David Marginson. I live on Curedale Lane Walton le Dale and I’m a consulting civil engineer, highway engineer and drainage engineer and still work today. And I’ve worked all over the country and all over the world, jobs as such as big as the Channel Tunnel Terminal, schools, hospitals, shopping centres. But I did work for Leyland Urban District Council and my first job was to design Parkway. So design and construct it for Parkway.
Just to say I’ll quickly do it. I’m going to talk about the trees first of all because they were just mentioned as trees, but they’re not particularly trees. These are the trees and they actually were planted in 1912 by The [Leyland] Walton le Dale Urban District Council for the coronation of King George and Queen Mary for their coronation and they were planted as a 21 gun salute and that’s what it was counted for. Now, I made the Environment Agency aware of this but there is no mention at all in the documents of this heritage that South Ribble Council has.
Also, your own tree preservation officer hasn’t a clue either. England Heritage hasn’t got a clue. The United, sorry, the Environment Agency has not got a clue either. And also, it seems very strange to me that this these trees are just going to be knocked down to just any old trees. But the information on the trees is in books and it is one of the books. It’s all set out and it’s also at Lancashire County Council archives. It is they were planted for that reason and it’s all in here and it’s all quite simple to find. So that was the basis of what I am trying to point out to the committee that it is your heritage because Walton le Dale Urban District Council joined with Leyland Urban District Council to become South Ribble Council.
So the trees belong to South Ribble Council. People think they belong to the de Hoghtons, but they actually belong to you. So this is our heritage and particular my great uncle was a Councillor on Walton le Dale Urban District Council in 1912. So it is a part of my family’s heritage that it exists. Now, I’m just going to point out a few, now quickly I’ll go on to the drawings. Inside the drawings it describes (I can actually stand up. It’s easy for me to stand up) the wall is this high at the moment and they want to make it that high (describes a distance of approximately 12 inches or 300 millimetres). And to do that, they want to uh construct a foundation which is this wide and 16 metres deep below my feet, which is three and a half double-decker buses.
The concrete foundation is going to be there’s the little wall at the top and this is the foundation through the wall. There’s the trees just behind there. And there’s Walton le Dale, Victoria Road. And below that, Walter Victoria Road is on an embankment.
It’s been built up three and a half meters since Oliver Cromwell came through. It’s quite strange. You won’t understand that. But this is how it was in the 1600s. It has been built up on on a So this is actually how it is and it’s actually the actual foundation punctures through into an aqueduct, an actual aqueduct that people take water out of. The environment agent said the only bore hole is three and a half metres to the northwest which is the Budweiser bore hole which is near tickle trout junction but just up the road I’ve got 4 minutes just running out but there is two more bow holes which take water out of this thing.
So, I’m just quickly just going to show you this is what it will look like from the river. This is the this is the this is what the the the the foundation will look like from the river. This is one of my jobs.
It’s as simple as that. That is all. And the other crux of the matter the the Lancashire County Council have not been involved in this scheme. It (is) in fact is a highway retaining structure. Lancashire County Council only been involved as a matter of a traffic regulation order. They have not been involved in this.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
David, David, I’m sorry. I do need to ask you to tie up, I have allowed you five minutes. [More than] four minutes.
[Speaker David Marginson]
It become it becomes and this is what it will look like. This is what they’re going to provide you with.
This is what it is. That is what it’s going to look like.
Thank you very much.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay.
[Speaker David Marginson]
Thank If you have any questions, thanks for your If you have any questions later on if you want to ask them. Thank you.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay.
[Speaker David Marginson]
Hope that was as quick as could do it.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay. Do we have a John Hull present this evening? Yes. Good evening, John.
Once David’s tied all his files up and architectural drawings, if you’d like to come and…
[Speaker John Hull]
Could you just speak up a bit?
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
I’d love to. Can you hear that, John?
[Speaker John Hull]
I’m John. Yes.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
If you’d like to take a seat, John.
[Speaker John Hull]
It’s okay. I’ll start.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay. There’s there’s a microphone in front of you.
[Speaker John Hull]
Right. Well, my name is John Hull. I’m a local resident live few hundred yards away from the site. I have a very serious interest in this job being a success because I’m surrounded by water flood defense. I’m just here to try and make sure that the job is job is done properly and done well. David has explained a lot of the history of it. If I could just explain that in 2002 the Environment Agency installed phase one of the Walton le Dale flood defense scheme. It comprised steel piles. There’s a cutoff wall each side of Victoria Road.
Along Victoria Road, they the adopted a small wall which David has fully described. The actual earth retaining structure is a an existing masonry wall in the river and an embankment.
In 2025 the EA now perceive that there’s problems with the stability of this wall and the embankment. Having said that, I’ve seen no evidence that they’ve done an adequate structural survey of the wall. There’s been no soils report that suggests why the wall is unstable.
I maintain that is unstable partly because of the work that they did in 2002 where they’ve funneled all the water through a narrow gap and that’s probably what she finds out. I can’t prove that but I could prove that if they had the money to do adequate soil investigation survey.
The EA now have decided to ditch the existing wall, allow it to fall into disrepair, and fall into the river, in favor of building a new wall that David described 16 metre long piles driven or bored 7 to 8 metres into rock. I consider that is not a rational decision. It would be much more rational. A more rational approach would be to replace existing masonry wall with a stoneclad wall possibly of sheet piles or whatever. A sheet pile wall would certainly work.
The EA designed 800 mm secant pile walls with a stated 100 year design life. By virtue of the decision that they made to ditch the existing masonry wall, this now becomes a highway retaining wall. It’s retaining 7 metre of earth plus a surcharge from the highway and impact barriers. Nowhere in the planning application does it mention that this is a highway retaining wall. The highway agency or the body that’s responsible for highway retaining walls, not the environment agency. Now whether they’ve come to some agreement between the two of them, that’s I don’t know. Don’t know. In order to construct this wall that to chop down 18 mature lime trees, install temporary sheet piles in order to build a retaining wall for the a guide wall for the secant piles and they install the secant piles. All that is going to have a very disruptive effect on the embankment. It’s a destabilizing effect.
They they say that they need 18 months to do the job. And, quite honest, I can’t understand that. But the design concerns I have is that there’s a I’m not convinced. I’ve not had anything that I’ve asked for information, but I’ve not been presented with anything that would suggest that they have done an adequate site investigation.
I’ve been provided with two rotary bore holes. One of them 20 or 30 metres off the line of the piles. They’ve done no seepage path analysis to assess the groundwater movements. No pomemeters have been installed which measure the poor water pressure and ground water movements and no consideration to the artisian pressure in a known aquifer in which to drill in hundreds of holes that diameter 7 metre that will release enormous quantities of water or that has the potential to release enormous quantities of water but they don’t know what quantities because they’ve not done any testing of it that the design that they have have adopted is an institute concrete contiguous board pile.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
John, you need to tie up now. You’ve had four and a half minutes. Okay. If you can just tie up this point you’re making and then we’ll move on.
[Speaker John Hull]
My big concern is that they haven’t done adequate testing of the water regime. The contiguous piles are notoriously difficult to install in water bearing grounds. That’s what that’s what it might look like. That’s what they’re asking you to approve.
You get some nice pretty pictures of what it looks like from the other side of the wall. But if you’re walking along the Ribble Way and the Ribble Valley, an area of outstanding natural beauty, they’re asking you to look at something like that when the whole doomsday scenario evolves and that wall disappears. When that wall does disappear, by the way,
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
John.
[Speaker John Hull]
There’s nothing to stop it.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
I’m sorry, John.
[Speaker John Hull]
Taking out the rest of us.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Right. Thank you. Thank you.
Debbie, would you like to come in and comment on any of those points the two gentlemen have made tonight?
[Speaker Debbie Roberts]
Yeah, thank you chair. I can comment on a couple of them. I appreciate the heritage associated with the trees is important. We’ve been to Growth Lancashire who are our heritage advisers. We’ve been to Lancashire County Council archaeology team. None of them have any objection to removal of these trees for this scheme because the benefits outweigh the loss of those trees.
We’ve got to remember that the Environment Agency wouldn’t enter into any irrational scheme on the basis of they hadn’t done this survey work, they hadn’t done the background work. I’ve been working on this for a good five or six years with them, and there’s a lot of work gone into this. The benefits definitely outweigh this scheme.
The highway retaining wall was brought to the attention of Lancashire County Council highways following Mr. Hull’s response. That was assessed by a senior highway engineer. Somebody else did the highway work itself but senior engineer and they have no objection. We have conditions relating to the highway and things like that but they have no objection to that either.
There are a few comments made but there is no evidence that this these surveys weren’t adequate. There’s no evidence that the approach the environment agency are taking is unacceptable. And had there been we would have looked to that evidence as well. But we have no objection from any of the statutory consulties, who are the experts in their fields, to this scheme. That’s as good as I can go. I believe the applicant has brought somebody who can answer in the technical questions. Is that right, Diccon? Yeah.
If you’ve got anything specifically relating to the engineering side of it, I’m not qualified to do that. So, I would I’ll ask that them to step in if that’s possible. Thank you, Chair.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
All right. Thanks for that advice, Debbie. Indeed we have the applicant, a Richard Knight with us this this evening ladies and gentlemen, and he also has a Dickon Wells [Project Manager], Anthea Rawcliffe [Project Executive], a Kathryne Gleave [Water and Environmental Management], and a Heather Carey [Director of Work Advance] with him, if you have any technical questions that you need to have clarified. Okay. So, we have the applicant, Richard Knight. If you would like to come and address the committee and if you wouldn’t mind, Richard, please, would you keep it to four minutes?
[Speaker Richard Knight]
Yep.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Thank you.
[Speaker Richard Knight]
Do I need to press any buttons here?
Is it red? It’s red.
Okay. Excellent. Right. Yeah. Good evening all. Thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to speak today. Richard Knight, project sponsor for the Preston South Ribble Flood Risk Management Scheme. Obviously, I’m representing the environment agency. This scheme has been developed in partnership with Lancashire County Council, South Ribble Bough Council, and Preston City Council. Phase one of the scheme is nearing completion and we’re ready to progress with the second phase to deliver long-term flood resilience for 300 homes and businesses in Walton Liddell. Overall, the scheme will reduce flood risk to almost 5,000 properties.
Flooding from the Rivers Ribble and Darwen remains a real and present risk to this community. The existing defenses provide a relatively low standard of protection, especially in the face of climate change and the increasing frequency of extreme weather.
In 2015, over topping of the defenses was only avoided because peak river flows coincided with low tide. And only last year, the river again came close to the top of the defense. The scheme is about acting before the next flood event occurs, protecting homes, businesses, key transport routes, and the wider local economy from harm. Under this application, the existing wall at Victoria Road, which as well as being below our target level of flood protection, is also showing signs of movement. This will be fully replaced with a new and higher wall. New defenses will also be constructed to protect properties on Chorley Road and to cut off the flow of flood water at Blue Bridge.
Lawful development certificates for associated works around Ribble Crescent and King’s Croft have already been granted as well as planning approval for the temporary access road at the Yew Tree [Inn]. Alongside flood resilience, the scheme is providing a lasting legacy through habitat creation, sustainable drainage projects in local schools and wider community outreach. It’s also supporting local jobs, apprenticeships, and suppliers, helping to ensure investment is felt in the community as well as seen in the infrastructure. The scheme has received support from our partners and much of the community.
However, we understand the concerns raised and our planning application shows we’ve fully assessed the environmental and construction impacts.
Detailed responses are set out in the committee report. With regards to the lime trees, due to the widespread of the root systems and the proximity of the working area, retaining 18 of the 21 trees is unfortunately not feasible. To preserve their legacy, we have taken 180 cutings for propagation and future replanting. Today, as part of the scheme development, we have actually planted over 14,000 trees. We acknowledge construction will cause temporary disruption where heavy heavy engineering is unavoidable. Our goal is to complete the work once and to a lasting standard.
The Victoria Road flood wall is a future proof solution with an engineering design life of over 120 years. This design is also as it is to allow us to raise the wall in a simple and less disruptive way in the future to keep pace with climate change. An important factor with current climate change scenarios likely to be further revised to reflect the everinccreasing risks. We’re working closely with Lanasher County Council on traffic management to mitigate impacts around road closures and to provide access for businesses and residents.
I would like to add considerable engagement has taken place with the local community and statutory consultes and their support is reflected in the planning submission.
This application represents a necessary and substantial investment in the long-term future of Walton le Dale reducing flood risk supporting local economy and enhancing the environment and it will complete successful delivery of the overall Preston and South Ribble flood scheme. For these reasons, I respectfully ask (the community) the committee to support our application. Thank you.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Thanks for your presentation, Richard. Have you got a stopwatch there?
Oh, right. Okay. Thanks very much for that. Um if anyone of the committee before I bring it in, if you have any questions for any of the experts, anybody?
Councillor Gleeson?
[Speaker Councillor Gleeson]
Thank you, chair.
I was happy to hear that you’ve taken cutings for the trees. That was going to be one of my questions. Can you tell us what’s going to happen with those cuttings and where they’ll be where they’ll be planted and what they’ll be used for?
[Speaker Richard Knight]
Can I introduce Dickon, my colleague, who’s project manager for for this reach?
[Speaker Dickon Wells]
Hi. Is that working? Yeah. Hi. Yes, we we have taken the cuttings. They’re being propagated in a local nursery at the moment. They’ll be being propagated for two years, and sort of over the course we’re looking for opportunities basically to find places in the local community to plant them. The de Hoghtons who own that strip of land have expressed an interest to plant some of them on their land. But yeah, (we are) open to suggestions from the community as to where the others can go.
[Speaker Councillor Gleeson]
Okay. So, Thank you. So it’s likely they will be placed as close to the original position as you can. Is that is that what (the available space)
[Speaker Dickon Wells]
Yes. We’re talking to…I (we) asked a question of Debbie… Open to suggestions, but we’d like to keep them in the community if there if there is available space for them.
[Speaker Councillor Gleeson]
Okay. Thank you.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Councillor Turner?
[Speaker Councillor Turner]
Thank you chair. Good evening. Sorry actually my question was more for Debbie. I think Debbie, you know, on the presentation you showed the proposed for Victoria Road, and there’s this one here with with the cement panelled and the the viewing thing.
I take it, is that an example from Preston?
[Speaker Debbie Roberts]
That’s what’s already in in Preston.
[Speaker Councillor Turner]
Yeah. Okay. (Be)cause one of the the concerns that I’ve got is that there are parts of that then, I don’t know if it is that bit there, where actually if you’re walking past you can’t actually see the river (be)cause they’re too high. So, I just wondered whether what if you could confirm. I meant to ring you about this, but I never got around to it before coming tonight. If you can confirm the viewing panels, will you will people because obviously a river is a massive feature in any big town or city, you know, it’s a it’s a big big thing. So, I just wondered whether the size of the the panels and cement pillars or whatever you want to call them is actually going to obstruct the river or will people still be able to see the view of the river in the one for Victoria Road etc.
[Speaker Debbie Roberts]
The height will differ, clearly in different locations because the land they’re based on undulates, and that’s all in in the report. But, the plan is that they should be of a height where you can see through them. That’s the whole point of them being glazed glazed panels.
On Victoria Road the seating area, there are benches in there already. That’ll be refurbished. So you’ll be able to see from there as well. Then viewing area.
[Speaker Councillor Turner]
(There is) One you can’t see (over).
[Speaker Debbie Roberts]
There’s bits of it where you can’t see.
I’ll be honest. I’ve only driven past the Preston one, so I couldn’t tell you whether you can or not. But Dickon, is that something, assuming the average person (can see over)?
[Speaker Dickon Wells]
The the section with the the glass panels is actually called Ribble Crescent. So, it’s from the the viewing platform up towards the road bridge, sort of Bridge Terrace. So that’s sitting behind all all those properties.
The the concrete crest the wall will be no higher than it is at the moment and the glass panel will effectively sit on top of that provide the additional height.
Yeah. So on Victoria Road, the finish will be very similar to to what it is at the moment that sort of like stone cladding finish and the increase in height will be about uh 300 mil. So it will be only slightly higher than it is at the moment. So yeah, it won’t obstruct the river views. Thank you for asking.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay. Thanks Dickon. Councillor Lomax, are you wanting address the project manager? Yes. Okay. Go ahead.
[Speaker Councillor Lomax]
Yeah. Most of my childhood was misspent in this area. Sea fishing because the actual tide as you know comes right up to there. We’re looking at future proofing.
I lived there for twenty odd years down there, and I can only remember the White Bull being flooded twice. I can’t remember the wall ever being breached on Victoria Road.
I know with global warming, yes, the likelihood is it it will flood, but why aren’t we putting non-return valve pumps onto the sewage into the river? (Be)cause all that’s going to happen is it’s still going to flood because it’s going to flood the other way. So why aren’t we looking at that, or have we looked at that?
[Speaker Dickon Wells]
We’ve taken the map of all the outsources there, and the majority of them have flat valves on the end which is the sort of the river component. As the environment agency our our author authority covers fluial and tidal flooding only. We are working with with partners in United Utilities and Lancashire County Council to to understand sort of the the drainage systems that come within their remit and uh see if there’s anything that that can be done. But that would be work that they would have to take forwards.
[Speaker Richard Knight]
I think it’s key to note we’re working with them to make sure that’s reckonised.
[Speaker Councillor Lomax]
Because the last time it flooded, which was last year, it was not over the defences. I can’t remember the defences ever being broken, apart from coming up from what used to be the Bridge Inn, which is now that child nursery. I think it’s terrible that they took away a drinking establishment…
But anyway, it will flood again, but I don’t think it’ll flood over for quite some time. But it’s just the return. And I just wondered why that’s all.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Are you are you um quite done, Councillor Lomax?
[Speaker Councillor Lomax]
Yeah. Yeah.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Councillor Pillinger?
[Speaker Councillor Pillinger]
Thank you, Chair. A question for EA and a question for Debbie. Just a clarification, if that’s not the wrong word, or it is the right word. Am I right in thinking that these glass panels will be water retention panels as well, if the water comes up that high?
[Speaker Richard Knight]
Absolutely. They’re an integral part of of the defence and it’s kind of building on work we’ve done elsewhere in places like Keswick and Kendall. So, Northwest has become a area where they’re you know really really used in large numbers as part of our flooded defences.
[Speaker Councillor Pillinger]
Yeah. I’m grateful that that thought has gone into that because people don’t want to be flooded, basically more than anything else. People don’t want the, you know, the water six foot up inside their ground floors, and we have in the past built on areas that will flood. We’re fairly certain of that. So, thank you for that thought.
Debbie, I wonder these specimen trees. Has there been any conversation with local community to try and identify where they might go?
[Speaker Debbie Roberts]
I’m not sure about that bit because a lot of this went in on the back of the Preston scheme. Fishwick Bottoms became, because of the Preston scheme, we’re tagging our bit onto the side of that. I assume so. I know the team have asked me if we can find anybody who wants the the trees that will come out if we can use the wood in the burer. Um, we’ve spoken to the parts team about about that. So, I assume that is the case. I could defer to Dickon, the font of all knowledge on this scheme, honestly.
[Speaker Dickon Wells]
We’ve made use of the contacts that we have. As always, we could always go wider with it, and would welcome any any suggestions, but yeah, we’re keen. We’re keen that it stays in the community.
[Speaker Councillor Pillinger]
I would be keen to ensure that our local residents like the people who’ve come this evening might be might be asked where those might go in their local community. The other thing that might happen with the wood that has been cut down, would there be any thoughts about making sculptures or seats out of the tree wood?
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
I don’t think. I don’t think that’s a planning. It’s not a material planning consideration.
[Speaker Debbie Roberts]
Well, as I’ve just said, we’ve already asked the parks team if they want the wood. They’re thinking about it. I don’t know if they do, but we’ve we’ve had the offer from the environment agency. We’ve put it to the parks team. They’d be the people who who organize that sort of things. The estates team, if you will. Thank you.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay. Thanks, Debbie. Councillor Green.
Is this a technical question to these two gentlemen who are going to release them? And yes, it is. Okay. Off you go, Councel Green.
[Speaker Councillor Green]
Yeah. Thank you. Whereas, I do understand that the flood measures are absolutely the crucial most point, important point of this development, and obviously we don’t want the place flooding and people’s lives at risk and things like that, but I was very interested in what the gentleman said about the historical side of it, and I just want I was glad to hear about you’ve taken cutings you know that you may be able to plant somewhere um and yes I do think you could consult with people with knowledge where they would like them placing if possible. And also the drinking fountain. I just wondered where where’s that going to be moved to or is it going to stay in the same place once the work’s been finished? I’m just concerned that part is quite historical because I think if I’m not wrong, correct me if I’m wrong, that was the site of the Battle of Preston.
So it’s a very important entry into Preston and historically it’s always [clears throat] been well known as that. So, I just wondered if you were going to put that back or move it somewhere else or I’m just concerned I’d like the historical side of it to be considered when you do this development if possible, please.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
I actually think the drinking fountain relocation is down to us, not to these two gentlemen. Am I correct, Debbie?
[Speaker Debbie Roberts]
Can I come in? There is a condition on the application somewhere, and I’m not sure which number it is without going through them. But essentially the Environment Agency need to tell us where they want to put the fountain afterwards and we will agree a position. It’ll be as close as possible to where it already is. We’re not going to send it off to somewhere else, but it may not be in that exact spot. It might have to move slightly. That’s something we’ll agree with the Environment Agency. And there is a condition to that effect, I believe.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay. Thank you.
Councillor Gleeson?
[Speaker Councillor Gleeson]
Thank you, Chair. It’s just another quick question, about the trees, I’m sure you’ve looked into all of this. I just wanted for clarity. There is no possibility of lifting the tree and as a whole and moving it to another area. I know it can be done with other trees. Is there a reason why it can’t be done with these trees?
[Speaker Dickon Wells]
Not with trees of that size.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay, gentlemen. Councillor Smith, did you have a question for these two chaps?
[Speaker Councillor Smith]
Yes, I do. Chair, my name was on the thing, but it keep kept on might not have come on your shame. Yeah, one or two questions, chair. You mentioned about the amount of houses that would be reduced for flooding. How many houses? I got it, but I thought, but I didn’t quite.
[Speaker Richard Knight]
Apologies. I did rattle through a little bit. In Walton le Dale it’s 300 homes and businesses better protected and the Preston South Ribble scheme overall is 5,000.
[Speaker Councillor Smith]
5,000. Right, okay, but in this particular part of the scheme it was 300 homes and businesses. Yeah, okay, that’s important.
[Speaker Richard Knight]
There’s some pretty key transport routes and and other infrastructure structure as well.
[Speaker Councillor Smith]
Okay. Thank you. There’s been mentioned that , I’m not quite sure it might be for Debbie this actually. I’ll ask a technical question first, which was regard to the 16 meter piling. I’d like to think that you wouldn’t be putting a 16 metre pile in if it wasn’t necessary, but there’s obviously a technical reason for a 16 metre pile, which is probably I won’t answer the question, but I’ll leave you to answer the question, but I can think what it might be. So, would you like to answer that question with a 16 metre piling?
[Speaker Dickon Wells]
Yeah. So, we did do extensive optionering. Obviously, as the environment agency, we don’t want to remove these trees. That was that was never the expressed way this progressing. So we looked at lots of different options for the way we could construct the defence. (On) The lower wall, there’s the sort of historic lower wall and there’s a small embankment and then there’s a small flood wall at the top. Because we knew we had to increase the height of the the upper flood wall and, sort of, relatively engineered solution would be would be required for that. We typically work to a, sort of, hundred year design life for for what we put in, and there is an expectation over the design life of the flood defence that lower wall could fail.
We’ve had some surveys of it. It’s very difficult to work out what the construction is from those sort of retrospective surveys. So it’s difficult to incorporate that within the design conditions. There are some trees growing out of it. It’s a reasonable assumption to assume that will fail over over the lifetime of the the defence.
If that lower wall were to fail, there would be a 7 metre retained height, so the secant foundation allows for that lower wall to fail without taking the flood wall and everything exists behind it with it, effectively.
Richard said in his statement as well that this also allows for for changes in flows due to climate change. So we have the ability if we wish to raise the wall in future, the foundation exists and we can use that existing foundation to to raise the height of the wall without having to go back in again to to put anything more substantial into the foundation. So it also provides future proofing from from that angle.
[Speaker Councillor Smith]
Okay. Thank you. I can go on with that that chair with regard to that and presumably some of that with with the ground stability. There’s been mention of the piles just being there to to to hold the road in place, and I’m sure there’s some of that because roads can fall into a river, I’m sure. But, I mean that helps the whole stability of of the site itself.
[Speaker Richard Knight]
And I think as a management authority really important. Our view is really we want to come in and do this and do this do this once.
You know and this this gives us that ability in that design life and if we do want to raise it in the future it’s a relatively simple operation of just raising rather than having to look at the foundations any further.
[Speaker Councillor Smith]
I get that it’s important with any engineering process that you get it right first time.
Just one more question chair please with with regard…
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
One more Councillor Smith. Just one more.
[Speaker Councillor Smith]
We need to get this right chair, but, yes one more question with regard to Growth Lancashire. It’s been mentioned that Lancaster County Council haven’t been consulted. Growth Lancashire, is that Lancashire County Council and and what part of Lancashire County Council is Growth Lancashire?
[Speaker Debbie Roberts]
Through the chair. No, Growth Lancashire are an independent organisation and we, for our part, we employ them as our heritage advisor.
We’re all qualified to to work on heritage things. They go into the ‘nth’ degree.
They have no objection to this and they are particularly fussy about it. Lancashire County Council archaeology team are a separate entity. They don’t have an issue with it either. But, so we’ve consulted two heritage organisations both from their own their own points of view, and neither have that. And I tend to be to work on the heritage work for this council. I wouldn’t have had an objection to it, but we did that as a fail safe.
Just coming back on council Councillor Green’s comment before about the water fountain. Condition three requires a methodology for resiting, for removal, cleaning, storage, and it has to be put back within 12 months of completion of the development. Thank you.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay, gents. Thanks very much for your help. I’m going to now open this application up to committee if you’d just like to take a seat. Thanks very much, gentlemen. Thanks.
Councillor Williams?
[Speaker Councillor Williams]
Thank you, Chair. I’d like to say thank you to everybody for speaking and there’s been a lot of information given to us and very, very good information about about various different aspects of of this application. I remember in 2015 flooding in my local in my local area 100 yards from my house. I spent Boxing Day 2015 filling sandbags trying to protect people’s houses in my locality, so, I know how devastating flooding can be personally, economically and and everything else. This area, was flood, has flooded whichever, which either from the river, or for groundwater, for a very, very long time.
I was quite, I’m quite heartened the fact that that there are going to be a legacy effectively from the lime trees that are going to be they’re going to be removed. I think at the time they were planted, I don’t think the fact that we need that area we would need defending was thought about at that particular time. A lot of stuff changes in years in years hence, and it is really regrettable that they have to come out, but I’m also concerned about the fact that a flood defense that was put there in 2002 has lasted 25 years, and to having to go into the the expense and the time and everything else to do it again.
So, actually future proofing it for 100 years is is a very, very good, is a good thing even though it’s going to be massively invasive, but you know the actual benefits that this will give to the area both for transport reasons, for housing reasons, for business reasons, I think does far outweigh any short-term damage on this (in this) particular case. Everything has its own particular merits. So, I’m quite happy with the application and I would like to propose, approve, that this is approved.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay. Thanks Councillor Williams.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Councillor Smith.
[Speaker Councillor Smith]
Yes. Thank thank you chair. We’ve obviously read this, very, very carefully and I’m confident, I think, with within in the report itself. I think it’s a good report. It’s a very technical report. We’ve had some technical detail and the consequences and unintended consequences of things like this I’m afraid cannot be helped and life has to move on I’m afraid, so I’d be quite happy to second it, Chair. Thank you
Along with the conditions that are attached to the report.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Absolutely, absolutely. Okay, thanks Councillor Smith.
Anybody else? I think Councillor Gleason is deferring to experience. Yeah
Councillor Mullineaux?
[Speaker Councillor Mullineaux]
Thank you, chair. Yeah, I can remember a good number of years ago the devastation that the floods caused all around higher Walton and Walton le Dale. All the businesses went under. They just got flooded away, you know, floated down the river. Terrible to think of it getting, you know, back to that. And I know they’ve made some changes since,
but this is a major change, which is needed at the end of the day.
I’m very disheartened to think of those lime trees going and just maybe from from the look of the place on the other side of the river looking across it looks a right mess. In that respect, it doesn’t look good. But it’s almost like it’s, you know, the need is there to do it, and you know, I was listening to what was going on there and I was concerned about the lime trees and the history and all that and, you know, unfortunately, the questions have been answered about what there’s no way we can retain them. I even thought but same as Councillor Gleeson about maybe could we take the trees up, you know, individually and do that, but obviously we can’t. That’s been um explained, so from my point of view very, very, reluctantly, although I am pleased that this is going forward it, it will cost tremendous amounts of money, I’m sure of that, and it will benefit lots of people around the area, so reluctantly, I would agree to go forward with this, but appreciate it’s been put forward and seconded. Thank you.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay. Thanks Councillor Mullineaux. Councillor Gleeson, you weren’t going offer to take these lime trees and put them in your massive back garden, were you?
[Speaker Councillor Gleeson]
In my yard, if you can, if you can fit them in there, I’ll happily take them.
It was, it’s just, something that I’ve got a concern about is that when, because I’ve lived in that area for 20 years, same as Chris has been the longest. I know it quite well and I have seen it break the defences before now onto the road.
When the new wall’s in place, all this water that now can’t get onto the road, has to go somewhere. And I’ve seen the fields on the opposite side of that flood quite a lot. So will there be a larger volume of water going over in that direction? Will that will that cause more damage on the other side? I don’t know. I’m just I’m just throwing it out there because I don’t know the answer.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
And I won’t know the answer. But the more, the more, water comes from the sky, the more waters are going to be. So, it would say to me it would go over to the embankment on… On the Preston side. Fishwick Bottoms.
[Speaker Councillor Gleeson]
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Yeah, that’s just just the point.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Councillor Lomax?
[Speaker Councillor Lomax]
Just to say that is the natural flood plane on the other side, and that’s where it goes. But I am still sorry to be missing the fishing spot that I had at fisherman’s steps. Yeah. And the swimming. Yeah, I learned to swim there.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Did somebody throw you in?
Anyway, that’s regard. Do we have any other proposals on this application? Don’t have any one wanting to refuse? Don’t want anybody to defer? Okay, thanks very much for that. Then let’s all go to the electronic vote. This is to for approval with conditions.
[Suchma Nayee – Senior Solicitor]
Members have voted in favour of officer recommendation planning permission is granted subject to conditions.
[Speaker Caleb Tomlinson]
Okay, thank you very much indeed for that ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for coming to this meeting this evening.
That is all we have tonight. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday the 23rd of April this year and I look forward to seeing you all.
Last comment at 1:14:42 (1 hour, 14 minutes, 42 seconds)