FLAWS IN PLANNING APPLICATION

Statement of Community Involvement

In the application 3/2025/0588 statement of community involvement it is clearly stated that 2,000 homes were contacted via a leaflet for public consultation about the intent to submit by Pringle Homes. Having spoken to many local friends and acquaintances barely anyone knew about this and hadn’t seen it. There are two ways of looking at this. Either the leaflet was made to look too much like a circular and ended up directly in the bin, or quite simply they were not delivered in the first place. Is there any evidence of this?

Why is this of concern? We are now facing a very tight time scale to collect as much information and opinions as possible due to the tight time scale of 21 days to appeal set out by Ribble Valley Planning department. All appeals must be made before 27th August.

The consultation letter sent out to nearby residents was dated the 6th of August but many only received on the 12th August. This means we have already lost 1/3 of the response period.

There is also many areas to poke holes in the consultation letter. Depicted is Pringle homes signature high end bungalows with a tag line saying “we are committed to delivering thoughtfully designed homes that meet local housing needs whilst enhancing the surrounding area” I can whole heartedly say that the proposed scheme put forward only adds pressure to the village but also is not in line with any of the local vernacular ; to quote directly Maybern’s Statement of Community Involvement ‘unduly impacting or harming local aesthetic’ which it will.

The Statement of Community Involvement claims compliance with consultation policy, but its execution is questionable — with limited local awareness, shortened response times, and a presentation that reads more like marketing than meaningful engagement.

Ecological Appraisal

An ecology report was carried out on the 6th August 2025. This report although insightful in some areas is deliberately worded to diminish the impact a site like this would have on local wildlife and trees and plants.

The report acknowledges 18 trees with Potential Roost Features (PRF-I) and that site habitats are of moderate suitability for foraging and commuting bats, including common pipistrelle, noctule, and other species protected under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2019 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

However, no dusk/dawn emergence or activity surveys have been undertaken—only a daytime ground-level tree assessment. This is insufficient to rule out roosts or quantify the site’s importance for bats.

Planning Policy Reference: NPPF para 186 and Circular 06/2005 require adequate surveys where there is reasonable likelihood of protected species presence before determination of a planning application.

The site supports woodland, scrub, and edge habitats suitable for nesting dunnock, starling, house sparrow, swift, and other Section 41 Priority Species.

Only two surveys were conducted (January and August), missing the main breeding season. This risks under-recording species presence, contrary to best practice guidelines. Removal of scrub and trees during development will cause permanent loss of nesting habitat unless avoided and adequately mitigated.

No dedicated invertebrate surveys were conducted despite the presence of structurally diverse woodland edge and scrub habitats. This omits a key component of biodiversity assessment.

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy

This survey only covers the site within the red lines. This area is unallocated fields of course there is going to be no concern for flooding because it hasn’t been used. But my main concern lies at the access of the site. The access is proposed directly before the A59 underpass. An area of Whalley we all know is absolutely prone to flooding in any period of heavy rain. This flooding problems cause caos on busy weekday mornings causeing many to have to reroute their journeys to work and school. Now let’s throw hard standing j to the mix, where is the surface runoff from heavy rainfall on the site going to go? Directly to this area underneath the bridge. It is just astonishing that this has not been mentioned once in the application.

Transport Assessment

Location of access junction is positioned right before the A59 underpass — already a traffic bottleneck and known flood point. The report fails to acknowledge how congestion and diversions occur whenever this underpass floods.

Predicted traffic increases are based soley on modelling rather than lived reality. Anyone familiar with Whalley knows peak-time congestion is already severe, especially school runs and rush hours.

it also fails to account for cumulative impact of other recent and pending developments in Whalley and the Ribble Valley.

The report makes generic reference to “accessible pedestrian routes,” but Clitheroe Road is has no footpath on that side of the road, it is busy, and also lacks continuous safe cycle infrastructure.

Increased traffic near the underpass would heighten risks for children walking to school.

The report notes proximity of bus stops and Whalley train station, but ignores the infrequency and unreliability of already crowded and services. Also grossly overstates the likelihood of residents relying on sustainable modes instead of private cars.

The accident data is treated statistically, rather than recognising local pinch points no pavements or safe crossing points that residents know are hazardous.

The Transport Assessment presents a theoretical, box-ticking exercise that concludes “no problem” but it ignores the lived reality of Whalley’s roads. By overlooking the flooding at the A59 underpass, underestimating existing congestion, and overstating the role of buses and trains, it gives a misleadingly optimistic picture. Far from being “safe and efficient,” this access risks making an already stretched local network even more dangerous and unreliable.

Planning Statement

the statement puts heavy reliance on borough-wide housing need, with poor recognition of Whalley’s disproportionate recent housing growth and strain on infrastructure. It Ignores local opinion that affordable housing need in Whalley may already be met or would be better located elsewhere in the borough.

The statement describes the site as “sustainable” without addressing lack of local GP capacity, school places, and overstretched community facilities.

Walking/cycling claims are generic; Clitheroe Road is busy and unsafe for schoolchildren and cyclists.

Design and character

there are claims that development will “fit the vernacular,” but plans show standardised low quality finish Pringle Home layouts. These do not reflect Whalley’s historic fabric and would erode village character.

Technical assessments referenced uncritically Relies on Flood Risk and Transport Assessments that themselves are flawed:

FRA ignores the known flooding problem at the A59 underpass near the site access.Transport report underestimates congestion and overstates the reliability of public transport.The Planning Statement accepts these assessments at face value, rather than addressing real local conditions.

Community involvement exercise downplays the weight of public objections from its own Statement of Community Involvement, most responses were against. Frames objections as “addressed,” but offers only generic reassurances rather than concrete mitigation.

The Planning Statement presents the development as policy-compliant and sustainable, but this rests on selective evidence and generic claims. It glosses over Whalley’s pressures on its roads, flooding, schools, and GP services, while leaning heavily on the headline “affordable housing need” to justify the scheme. Instead of a balanced evaluation, it reads as a marketing exercise designed to outweigh community concerns, making it a flawed and one-sided planning case.