This table links to the responses of those organisations FBC
invited to comment. For each ONE, we have provided a BRIEF note of what we believe their response to be.
| Respondent |
Details |
| Lytham St Anne's Civic Society |
00039231.pdf Supports QED objection This is an updated version of 00038892 (below) dated 29 Jan, not 16 Jan |
| Lytham St Anne's Civic Society |
00038892.pdf Supports QED objection also raises issues of planning and urban design, |
| Lancashire C C Resources Directorate |
00038891.pdf This is a repeat of 00038872.pdf below, but with a file reference having been added to the scanned document. |
| Lancashire C C Resources Directorate |
00038872.pdf Director requires cash payment of £6.246024 million for libraries, children's centre, education, waste management, plus
additional cash for 'transport' and for 'natural heritage', plus a site for a school. |
| Lancashire C C Environment Directorate |
00038871.pdf Director believes the application can conform to the Regional Spatial Strategy if a range of issues are resolved. |
| 4NW |
00038739.pdf 4NW is the 'Regional Leaders Forum for the northwest of England' Whilst not speaking for or against, they raise several very serious concerns. |
| Dr. Sarah Manchester. Lancashire C C Environment Department |
00038171.pdf Definitive environmental critique which sets out the environmental problems this site would cause if developed. Also criticises some of the environmental research work undertaken by Kensington. |
| Saint Anne's on the Sea Town Council |
00038170.pdf Strongly objects to the application and lists 27 reasons for their objection. Also suggest if FBC is minded to approve the application they should ask the minister to "call-in" the decision and have an enquiry. |
| Lancashire Wildlife Trust |
00038035.pdf Objects to the application mostly because it will have a likely significant impact on a site of European importance. |
| Natural England |
00037985.pdf Notes the importance of the area for wildlife. Criticised the environmental study for not fully recognising the implications on a European site. Makes a holding objection
because there is insufficient evidence |
| Lancashire Cyclists Action Group |
00037984.pdf Same as previous letter (on FBC website as 00037602.pdf ) but a file reference has been added to this letter by hand. |
| RSPB |
00037968.pdf Object because of likely significant impact on a European site of importance for wildlife. |
| QED |
qedobjection.pdf This is our comprehensive, 35 page objection recommending refusal. |
| Fylde Ringing Group |
00037936.pdf Damage biodiversity and birds, loss of peatmoss agriculture, road will damage birds, people will disturb them. Recommends refusal |
| CPRE |
00037907.pdf Outside limit of development; would be in greenbelt; wildlife threat; flooding; and premature. Recommends refusal |
| Defend Lytham via Anthony Padfield |
00037883.pdf Objection recommending refusal on detailed planning grounds. |
| Lancashire County Council Highways Division |
00037604.pdf Same as previous letter (on FBC website as 0037482.pdf) but "ME" has been added to this letter's reference by hand. |
| Environment Agency |
00037603.pdf 25 November. Withdraws previous objection but imposes a list of conditions. |
| Lancashire Cyclists Action Group |
00037602.pdf Asks for different roundabout layout and road crossing arrangements. (Now replaced by objection ref: 00037948.pdf see above) |
| Fylde Bird Club |
00037574.pdf Strongly recommends refusal because it is detrimental to biodiversity. |
| United Utilities |
00037533.pdf No objection in principle, List of conditions re drainage and water supply if approved. |
| Wyre Borough Council |
00037532.pdf No observations |
| Lancashire County Council Countryside Service |
00037524.pdf Mostly about rights of way, and bridleways. Concerned there is no provision to enhance public access and recreational use of the area. |
| Lancashire County Council Highways Division |
00037482.pdf Unable to reply in the time required. Will send observations as soon as possible. See subsequent letter above. |
| Blackpool Airport |
00037459.pdf Object. Wants more detail on heights of buildings, balancing ponds, and proposed tree planting. |
| Environment Agency |
00037417.pdf 12th November. Object to the application as submitted. Considered contrary to Policy EP30 (Development and flood risk). They say the site is in Flood zone 1 and has insufficient detail of the drainage arrangements. Say if FBC is
minded to approve the application they should allow the Environment Agency to comment further. NB See also a second letter above |
| CPRE |
00037319.pdf Object to development which is contrary to planning policy, and recommend refusal. This objection
has been superseded (see above) and is now withdrawn |
| Blackpool Borough Council |
00037314.pdf Cautious concern about scale and drainage. |
