bold forest park - st helens · 1 bold forest park draft area action plan 2014 (preferred options)...

1

Bold Forest Park

Draft Area Action Plan 2014 (Preferred Options) Report of Consultation and Summary of Changes

1. Purpose of Report This report considers the responses received following public consultation on the Draft Bold Forest Park Area Action Plan (AAP) and supporting documents. It sets out how the Council has considered each response received by detailing how comments have been addressed during preparation of the next stage of the Plan – the ‘Publication’ version. It also provides a summary of the changes that have been made to the document following the consultation with the reasons behind them. 2. Background Public consultation on the Draft Bold Forest Park AAP took place between November 27th 2014 and 16th January 2015. This was the second public consultation on the Plan’s preparation following the initial Bold Forest Park AAP Scoping Consultation held between 24th July 2013 and 11th September 2013. This consultation sought views on the preferred strategic approach and policy options for the Bold Forest Park area’s future development as presented in the Draft Plan. To ensure the community and stakeholders were notified of the consultation, the Council followed the relevant methods set out in the adopted Statement of Community Involvement. Copies of the documents were made available to view at the Town Hall and community libraries across the Borough. Responses were accepted via post or electronically. The sample response form and accompanying guidance note are included in Appendix B. 3. Responses to the Consultation This report has ordered consultation responses in relation to which part of the Draft Plan they relate. Where comments were broad in nature or not directed at any particular section or policy, these have been considered as ‘General Comments’ and have been addressed accordingly. Comments relating to the supporting documents including the Supporting Technical Document, the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) have also been considered. In summary, there was strong support for the Draft Plan and the preferred approach and policies it sets out; with the majority of those responding offering positive and constructive feedback. Areas that were highlighted included a tighter focus on key market sectors such as cycling, arts development, woodland development, coordinated information and signage, greater emphasis on public transport, local employment and enjoyment of the countryside for its own sake, and promotion of local heritage.

http://www.sthelens.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/statement-of-community-involvement/

2

A detailed breakdown of individual consultee responses with how the Council has addressed them is set out below, followed by a table summarising changes made to the document following Officer’s recommendations.

3

General Comments on Draft Plan

Representation No. 001 Response Ref. DBFP1 Name: Sue Young Organisation: None Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Comment Only. Response and/or Summary: Pennington Flash and other park areas have bird hides which are well used, and my other suggestion is cleaning up the ponds, to make them dipping pools (to look for pond life etc.) Obviously these need to be safe areas for the children to use. At the moment the ponds are murky smelly areas. The update of the footpath along the old railway line is really good and seems to be quite well used, and the tracks up around the dream are good, so overall it’s quite a nice area to walk around. Officer Recommendation: Suggestion and comments noted. The provision of bird hides and the cleaning of ponds to create dipping pools whilst not directly proposed by the AAP would be in tune with one of the Plan’s key objectives - to enhance the natural environment through targeted delivery of green infrastructure programmes that improve and expand the biodiversity and landscape quality. Furthermore, the delivery of such measures would be supported by preferred Policy BFP ENV2 which seeks to enhance biodiversity in the Bold Forest Park by developing an ecological network, which reduces habitat fragmentation and increases the resilience of wildlife. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 002 Response Ref. DBFP3 Name: Angela Gemmill Organisation: Marine Management Organisation Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Comment Only. Response and/or Summary: Thank you for inviting the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to comment on the above consultation. I can confirm that the MMO has no comments to submit in relation to this consultation. Officer Recommendation: Comment noted. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

4

Representation No. 003 Response Ref. DBFP4 Name: Dave Dickinson Organisation: Highways Agency Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Comment Only. Response and/or Summary: After reviewing the documents I can confirm that the Highways Agency has no objections to the proposals set out in the plan. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 004 Response Ref. DBFP5 Name: Eric Roberts Organisation: Electricity North West Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Comment Only. Response and/or Summary: We have considered the above and find it has no impact on our Electricity Distribution System infrastructure or other ENW assets. Any requirements for a supply of electricity will be considered as and when a formal application is received. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 005 Response Ref. DBFP6 Name: Karl Briggs Organisation: None Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Agree. Response and/or Summary: The approach is excellent, as long as it actually happens. More tress are definitely needed in the area around ‘The Dream’ especially near the motorway, the idea of trees lining the route on Jubits Lane as you come into St Helens is also needed, this will encourage visitors to come into the area and actually feel like a forest area, at the moment it does not.

5

The old railways line turned into a running/bike area was a great idea, but I hope more trees are going to be planted down this route to make it a more leafy feeling. Officer Recommendation: Suggestions and comments noted. Increasing tree cover in the Bold Forest Park area is a key element of the overall preferred strategic approach as outlined in draft Policy BFP1: A Sustainable Forest Park. This is to be implemented through seeking additional and / or improved landscaping from new developments and working jointly with the Mersey Forest and landowners on project implementation. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 006 Response Ref. DBFP7 Name: Daniel Itzcovitz Organisation: Transport for London Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Comment Only. Response and/or Summary:

I do not believe TfL have any comments to give on this occasion, as your planned

development of Bold Forest would most likely have little impact on transport in the capital.

We wish you all the best in your endeavour, and we hope that your consultation proves

useful.

Officer Recommendation: Comments noted.

Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 007 Response Ref. DBFP10 Name: Rachael A. Bust Organisation: The Coal Authority Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Comment Only. Response and/or Summary: Surface Coal Resources, Development and Prior Extraction As you will be aware, the western part of the Bold Forest Area Action Plan area contains coal resources which are capable of extraction by surface mining operations. These resources cover an area running from the south-west to the north-west. The remainder of the Plan area is underlain by deep coal resources. The Coal Authority is keen to ensure that coal resources are not unnecessarily sterilised by new development. Where this may be the case, The Coal Authority would be seeking prior extraction of the coal. Prior extraction of coal also has the benefit of removing any potential land instability problems in the process. Contact details for individual operators that may be able to assist with coal

6

extraction in advance of development can be obtained from the Confederation of Coal Producers’ website at www.coalpro.co.uk/members.shtml. As The Coal Authority owns the coal on behalf of the state, if a development is to intersect the ground then specific written permission of The Coal Authority may be required. Coal Mining Legacy As you will also be aware, the Bold Forest Area Action Plan area has been subjected to coal mining which will have left a legacy, indeed the Council has been addressing this legacy for many years and the Bold Forest Park is the latest initiative in this ongoing regeneration activity. Whilst most past mining is generally benign in nature, potential public safety and stability problems can be triggered and uncovered by development activities. Problems can include collapses of mine entries and shallow coal mine workings, emissions of mine gases, incidents of spontaneous combustion, and the discharge of water from abandoned coal mines. These surface hazards can be found in any coal mining area, particularly where coal exists near to the surface, including existing residential areas. Within the Bold Forest Park area there are a number of recorded mine entries and other coal mining related hazards. The mining legacy features include: · Unrecorded historic probable shallow coal workings running north from M62 J7 to

the industrial estate · Mine entries in wooded area east of Sutton Manor · Mine entries at Clock Face Colliery Country Park · Mine entries in wooded area west of Burtonwood Brewery · Mine entries and mine gas site east of Moss Hall Farm · Mine gas site north of Mill Green Farm Mine entries may be located in built up areas, often under buildings where the owners and occupiers have no knowledge of their presence unless they have received a mining report during the property transaction. Mine entries can also be present in open space and areas of green infrastructure, potentially just under the surface of grassed areas. Mine entries and mining legacy matters should be considered by Planning Authorities to ensure that site allocations and other policies and programmes will not lead to future public safety hazards. No development should take place over mine entries even when treated. The various mine entries within the AAP area have treatment details recorded, although these appear to be of various standards, with some completely filled and capped, with others only having lightweight security capping. Although mining legacy occurs as a result of mineral workings, it is important that new development recognises the problems and how they can be positively addressed. However, it is important to note that land instability and mining legacy is not always a complete constraint on new development; rather it can be argued that because mining legacy matters have been addressed the new development is safe, stable and sustainable. As The Coal Authority owns the coal and coal mine entries on behalf of the state, if a development is to intersect the ground then specific written permission of The Coal Authority may be required. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. The Bold Forest Park AAP will form part of the overall Local Plan for St. Helens and whilst the Plan does seek to provide a framework for encouraging and supporting certain types of development within the Forest Park area, it does not specifically allocate land. Any proposed development within the Forest Park will be subject to relevant development plan polices and necessary notification to the Coal Authority as statutory consultee to ensure safety concerns are properly addressed.

http://www.coalpro.co.uk/members.shtml

7

The supporting technical document (figure 4) identifies the areas of known surface coal resource within the AAP area. In adherence with the National Planning Policy Framework, St. Helens will be preparing planning policy on mineral safeguarding and prior extraction of mineral resources for inclusion in the emerging Local Plan which will be subject to separate consultation. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 008 Response Ref. DBFP15 Name: Kevin Usher Organisation: Warrington BC Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Comment Only. Response and/or Summary: Warrington broadly supports the proposed scope of the Area Action Plan, its aims/objectives and the extent of the area that it covers. The Forest Park has been acknowledged as making an important contribution to the Mersey Forest initiative for several years. Its status is acknowledged in Warrington’s Local Plan Core Strategy (Policy CS6), which was adopted in July last year, as being important in reinforcing and maximising the environmental and socio-economic benefits to the wider sub-region. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. Support from Warrington BC and acknowledgement in the Warrington Local Plan is welcomed. St. Helens recognises the cross boundary implications of the AAP given its context and will continue to engage positively with neighbouring authorities on the Plan’s preparation. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 009 Response Ref. DBFP16 Name: Emily Hrycan Organisation: Historic England

(formerly English Heritage) Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan Agree/disagree? Comment only Response and/or Summary of Comments: Based on the map provided in the consultation report (at a high scale), the Plan area appears to include 4 scheduled monuments and 11 grade two listed buildings. One of the scheduled monuments – Old Moat House, Medieval Moated House, Bold (1017582) - currently appears on the Heritage at Risk Register 2014. The AAP for Bold Forest Park does not include a proper description, identification and assessment of the historic environment and the supporting evidence base does not appear

8

to include any heritage information. The lack of consideration of the historic environment including the designated heritage assets has resulted in a plan that fails to demonstrate how it will conserve and enhance the historic environment of the Plan area and guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally. As a result it does not accord with the requirements of the NPPF on these matters. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. Details of the built heritage within the Forest Park are included in the Supporting Technical Document (section 3.5). These details include those Scheduled Ancient Monument and Listed Buildings and sites of archaeological interest located within the AAP area. The Bold Forest Park AAP will form part of the overall Local Plan for St. Helens and any proposed development within the Forest Park will be subject to relevant development plan polices including Policy CQL 4 ‘Heritage and Landscape’ in the adopted Core Strategy 2012 which seeks to protect, conserve, preserve and enhance the borough’s historic built environment. To address concerns raised and further highlight the presence of heritage assets within the Bold Forest Park, it is recommended that additional detailed consideration of the local historical environment as a key issue should be included in the Publication Version with policy on heritage amended to support the delivery of its conservation and enhancement. Outcome: Agree to make changes to the Publication Version to enhance and strengthen the Plan’s consideration of built heritage. In particular: elaborate on heritage as a Key Issue providing additional evidence based information on the Forest Park’s built heritage including details of listed heritage assets; and amend Policy BFP ENV3: Heritage to set out more clearly how the AAP policy will ensure and deliver the protection and enhancement of the Forest Parks’ heritage assets. Decision: Agree change

Representation No. 010 Response Ref. DBFP17 Name: Elliot Kemp Organisation: Greater London Authority (Mayor of

London) Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Comment Only. Response and/or Summary: The Mayor wishes to focus on responding to consultations on documents which have clear strategic planning implications for London and are at a stage of preparation when his comments will be of most benefit to your authority. In the light of this, the Mayor wishes to inform you that he has no comment on the Draft Bold Forest Park Area Action Plan. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

9

Representation No. 011 Response Ref. DBFP19 Name: Mike Berry Organisation: Office of the Police and Crime

Commissioner for Merseyside Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Comment Only. Response and/or Summary: I know that Merseyside Police’s Neighbourhood Team have contacted your offices with no concerns expressed regards the Action Plan and I can confirm that the Police and Crime Commissioner has viewed their report and has no concerns regards the plans for the Bold Forest initiative. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 012 Response Ref. DBFP20 Name: Kate McClean Organisation: Taylor Wimpey Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: After reviewing the BFAAP and the Supporting Technical Document, we wish to express our support for the policies outlined within it and consider they align well with both TW's vision for Clock Face and the core planning principles set out within the NPPF (paragraph 17) as follows: • Seeking to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants

of land and buildings; • Recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting

thriving rural communities within it; • Making full use of public transport ,walking and cycling, and focusing significant

development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; and • Supporting local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all,

and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities to meet local needs. The BFAAP and supporting technical document recognises the need to accommodate over 13,000 new dwellings within St Helens. There is specific reference to the possible extension of the urban edge at Clock Face and Sutton. For the reasons set out above, we firmly believe TW sites at Gorsey Lane and Gartons Lane offer a special and unique opportunity to complement, enhance and help deliver the objectives set out in the BFAAP. Officer Recommendation: Support noted. The AAP acknowledges as a key issue the potential of land within the Bold Forest Park to meet some of the Borough’s strategic

10

housing need although the AAP itself does not formally allocate land for residential development. It is recommended this recognition is strengthened and consideration given to including policy setting out how the land in the Forest Park will contribute to meeting the borough’s identified strategic land use needs within the framework of the wider St. Helens Local Plan.

Outcome: Agree to make changes to the Publication Version to clarify the role of the AAP in meeting the wider strategic land use needs of the Borough. In particular: expand on ‘meeting strategic needs of the Borough’ as a Key Issue; and introduce new policy to set out how the release of land in the Bold Forest Park (and Green Belt) to meet identified housing/employment needs would be considered. Decision: Partial change

Representation No. 013 Response Ref. DBFP21 Name: Helen Williams Organisation: St. Helens Council, Public Health

Programmes Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Comment Only. Response and/or Summary: The Bold Forest Park Area Action Plan draft is a comprehensive document that lays out the vision for the area. The Public Health team welcome and acknowledge how this enhanced asset can play a part in improving the health of residents and visitors. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. The Council is committed to working with its partners to ensure that Bold Forest Park provides opportunities for community health improvement as outlined in preferred Policy BFP Com 3: Establish Bold Forest Park as a flagship resource for Health and Wellbeing. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 014 Response Ref. DBFP23 Name: Brian Smith Organisation: None Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Comment Only. Response and/or Summary: I would like to start by saying how wonderful it was to read a well-articulated document on the regeneration of the Bold area. As a Bold resident, I am pleased to hear of the new developments proposed to encourage employment, tourism and wellbeing in the community. Can photography can be added to the list of proposed activities. There are a significant amount of keen amateur photographers who come to Bold to capture wildlife, experiment with lighting exposure techniques in landscape photography and portraiture in

11

the country. I speak with confidence as I have taught many amateur photographers in this area. Officer Recommendation: Comment and suggestion noted. The list of suggested activities referred to in the Draft Plan is not exhaustive and there is potential for photography as another, although it not considered necessary to specifically make reference. Key objectives of the Plan are to increase accessibility for a diverse range of outdoor activities and to enhance the natural environment to improve and expand the landscape quality. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 015 Response Ref. DBFP24 Name: Peter Sandman Organisation: Liverpool City Region LEP Response relating to: General comment on Draft Plan. Agree/disagree? Comment Only. Response and/or Summary: Pleased to see the regeneration of this area in terms of improving the local environment for your residents and product diversity for the LCR visitor economy. As the document says, this provides critical mass that will allow a full or half day visit and capitalises on the profile Dream. It also enhances the wider coast and countryside offer of the LCR visitor economy of which there is an emerging market of affluent middle aged couples with/without children etc. In terms of the options for further diversification, the potential opportunity to locate a caravan site in this area would have further appeal. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. The AAP recognises the importance of tourism to the LCR economy and considers the Forest Park well located to draw visitors from larger nearby conurbations with good motorway accessibility. It is recommended that consideration and of the potential to locate a caravan site in the Forest Park should be made for the Publication Version of the AAP in support the wider city region’s visitor economy. Outcome: Agree to change to include recognition of the opportunity and potential for a caravan site located within the AAP in the Publication Version (as part of an indicative Recreation Hub) to meet the aspirations of the Caravan Club. Decision: Partial change

1. Introduction

Representation No. 016 Response Ref. DBFP21

12

Name: Helen Williams Organisation: St. Helens Council, Public Health Programmes

Response relating to: Paragraph 1.1.2 (page 4) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: “As a place for public outdoor recreation” - this should read either outdoor recreation and activity or just outdoor activity to reflect the opportunity for physical activity being offered. Officer Recommendation: Comment noted and text amended as advised. Outcome: Text amended as per comment. Decision: Agree change

2. Policy Context Representation No. 017 Response Ref. DBFP21 Name: Helen Williams Organisation: St. Helens Council, Public Health

Programmes Response relating to: Paragraph 2.1 (page 6) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: There is no reference to the St Helens Health and Well Being Strategy 2013-2016. This strategy should be referenced within the policy context. In particular priority 4, obesity and excess weight, priority 5, promoting mental health and well -being. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. Recommended that the ‘St. Helens Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2013-2016’ is referenced in the Publication Version support of the AAP objectives and policies concerning health and wellbeing. Outcome: Agree to change to include reference to the ‘St. Helens Health and Well Being Strategy 2013-2016’ in Section 2 ‘Policy Context’ of Publication report. Decision: Agree change


Programmes Response relating to: Paragraph 2.3.1 (page 6)

13

Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: St Helens Plan 2012-15 also has an aim to Improving People’s Lives and promote being healthy and active. This should be referenced within the Local Policy context. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. The St. Helens Plan 2015-2018 has now been published. Recommend text is changed to reflect this and include reference to promotion of healthy active lifestyles. Outcome: Agree to include additional text making reference of the aim of promoting healthy and active lifestyles. Decision: Agree change

3. Area Context


(formerly English Heritage) Response relating to: Section 3 (pages 7-10) Agree/disagree? Comment only Response and/or Summary of Comments: This section needs to identify and describe the historic environment that exists within the Forest Park area. There are 15 designated assets including four scheduled monuments (one of which is on the National Heritage at Risk Register). Yet the Plan fails to mention this in this section. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. Details of the built heritage within the Forest Park are included in the Supporting Technical Document (section 3.5). These details include those Scheduled Ancient Monument and Listed Buildings and sites of archaeological interest located within the AAP area. To address concerns raised and further highlight the presence of heritage assets within the Bold Forest Park, it is recommended that additional detailed consideration of the local

historical environment as a key issue should be included in the Publication Version with

policy on heritage amended to support the delivery of its conservation and enhancement Outcome: Agree to make changes to the Publication Version to enhance and strengthen the Plan’s consideration of built heritage. In particular: elaborate on heritage as a Key Issue providing additional evidence based information on the Forest Park’s built heritage including details of listed heritage assets; and amend Policy BFP ENV3: Heritage to set out more clearly how the AAP policy will ensure and deliver the protection and enhancement of the Forest Parks’ heritage assets.

14

Decision: Agree change

Representation No. 020 Response Ref. DBFP11 Name: Alex Naughton Organisation: Merseytravel Response relating to: Paragraph 3.1.2 (page 7) Agree/disagree? Comment only Response and/or Summary of Comments: Wording should be altered to reference the rail / public transport access before the motorway and car access as the current wording could infer that car access is prioritised. So “The park straddles the M62 Motorway between Junctions 7 and 8 allowing easy road access” sentence should be moved to the end of the paragraph after the rail sentence. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. Recommend change to strengthen emphasis on public transport within the AAP. Outcome: Agree to change to Publication Version to place emphasis on public transport accessibility. Decision: Partial change


(formerly English Heritage) Response relating to: Paragraph 3.2.5 (page 9) Agree/disagree? Comment only Response and/or Summary of Comments: The last line of the paragraph suggests that the heritage in the Plan area has a role to play in defining the area yet the Plan does little to detail this and put forward a strategy for its conservation and enhancement. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. To address concerns raised and further highlight the presence of heritage assets within the Bold Forest Park, it is

recommended that additional detailed consideration of the local historical environment as a key issue should be included in the Publication Version with policy on heritage

amended to support the delivery of its conservation and enhancement. Outcome: Agree to make changes to the Publication Version to enhance and strengthen the Plan’s consideration of built heritage. In particular: elaborate on heritage as a Key Issue providing additional evidence based information on the Forest Park’s built heritage including details of listed heritage assets; and amend Policy BFP ENV3: Heritage to set

15

out more clearly how the AAP policy will ensure and deliver the protection and enhancement of the Forest Parks’ heritage assets. Decision: Agree change

4. Research and Consultation Background

Representation No. 022 Response Ref. DBFP24 Name: Peter Sandman Organisation: Liverpool City Region LEP Response relating to: Paragraphs 4.1 – 4.7 (page 11.) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: In terms of the metrics regarding visitor volume and value, Have these been subject to any further testing in terms of the validity of the baseline (200,683 visits/£63K GVA per annum) and the projected growth target over 5 years (306,641/£910,270 per annum)? The volume figure seems slightly on the high side. Leading on from the above, the overall visitor proposition could be a little clearer in terms of walking, cycling, interpretation and specific recreational per suits. The 'typical activities' listed are very broad ranging and it would be useful to get an understanding of the quality of those activities listed. Is the aspiration best in class or something else? Based on these two points, have you undertaken a competitor analysis, identified target markets and visitor profiles? If you need to demonstrate the economic case it will be important to show the USPs here in terms of the likelihood in attracting non-residents - day visitors and short breakers etc. Does there also need to be consideration in terms of how the destination will be marketed to achieve the predicted visitor numbers. I saw the reference to the BFP marketing plan, however there seems to be no reference to this within the development management structures. Similarly what is the overall approach for maintenance in terms of ongoing upkeep of facilities and services etc. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. The evidence base prepared by consultants (URS) to provide the economic rationale and case behind the AAP is considered to be robust. It is recommended that the Publication Version highlights the market potential of the Forest Park drawing on the evidence base prepared by URS in the Economic Intelligence Gathering Report 2012. It is also recommend that the Plan makes clearer how the marketing plan will be delivered through the management structures. Outcome: Agree change to Publication Version to more clearly set out the Market Potential as identified in the supporting evidence base as a Key Issue. Management structures section to be amended to clarify the role of the Implementation Group in delivering the Delivery Plan. Decision: Partial change

16

5. The Case For Bold Forest Park


(formerly English Heritage) Response relating to: Paragraph 5.1 (page 14) Agree/disagree? Comment only Response and/or Summary of Comments: The potential to improve the historic environment of the area should be recognised here. Given it is an intention in Key issue 4 (paragraph 6.4.2) and also that the area includes a number of designated heritage assets. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. To address concerns raised and further highlight the presence of heritage assets within the Bold Forest Park, it is

recommended that additional detailed consideration of the local historical environment as a key issue should be included in the Publication Version with policy on heritage

amended to support the delivery of its conservation and enhancement. Outcome: Agree to make changes to the Publication Version to enhance and strengthen the Plan’s consideration of built heritage. In particular: elaborate on heritage as a Key Issue providing additional evidence based information on the Forest Park’s built heritage including details of listed heritage assets; and amend Policy BFP ENV3: Heritage to set out more clearly how the AAP policy will ensure and deliver the protection and enhancement of the Forest Parks’ heritage assets. Decision: Agree change


Programmes Response relating to: Paragraph 5.1 (page 14) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: The following should be added: “Contributes to St Helens Healthy Weight Strategy and St Helens Health and Well Being Strategy”. Officer Recommendation: Suggestion acknowledged. Recommended that the above text is added to Paragraph 5.1. Outcome: Agree to change to include above text in Publication Version.

17


6. Issues, Problems and Challenges


(formerly English Heritage) Response relating to: Paragraph 6.4.2 (page 16). Agree/disagree? Comment only. Response and/or Summary of Comments: Whilst we welcome the intention to recognise the heritage of the area and utilise it, the Plan as a whole fails to identify what this is and put forward a strategy for its conservation and enhancement. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. The Bold Forest Park AAP will form part of the overall Local Plan for St. Helens and any proposed development within the Forest Park will be subject to relevant development plan polices including Policy CQL 4 ‘Heritage and Landscape’ in the adopted Core Strategy 2012 which seeks to protect, conserve, preserve and enhance the borough’s historic built environment. To address concerns raised and further highlight the presence of heritage assets within the Bold Forest Park, it is recommended that additional detailed consideration of the local

historical environment as a key issue should be included in the Publication Version with

policy on heritage amended to support the delivery of its conservation and enhancement. Outcome: Agree to make changes to the Publication Version to enhance and strengthen the Plan’s consideration of built heritage. In particular: elaborate on heritage as a Key Issue providing additional evidence based information on the Forest Park’s built heritage including details of listed heritage assets; and amend Policy BFP ENV3: Heritage to set out more clearly how the AAP policy will ensure and deliver the protection and enhancement of the Forest Parks’ heritage assets. Decision: Agree change


Programmes Response relating to: Paragraph 6.3.2 (page 15). Agree/disagree? Comment only.

18

Response and/or Summary: The bullet point ‘Improving health’, should be amended to read ‘improving health and wellbeing’. Officer Recommendation: Suggestion noted. Recommended paragraph is elaborated to set out how the Forest Park can address promoting physical health. Outcome: Agree to change Publication Version to expand paragraph to setting out how the Forest Park can address promoting physical health. Decision: Agree change

7. Vision, Aims and Objectives


(formerly English Heritage) Response relating to: Paragraph 7.1 (page 20). Agree/disagree? Comment only. Response and/or Summary of Comments: The vision, aims and objectives for the park fails to recognise the historic environment and promote the conservation and enhancement of its heritage assets. Officer Recommendation: The Vision should be amended to reflect the importance of the cultural environment as part of the local character of the Forest Park. Objectives are set out in the Core Strategy. Outcome: Agree to amend vision to make recognition heritage as part of the cultural environment. Decision: Partial change

Representation No. 028 Response Ref. DBFP22 Name: Kate Wheeler Organisation: Natural England Response relating to: Paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 (page 20) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: Natural England welcomes the detail provided in section 7.1, The Vision for Bold Forest Park “By 2030 Bold Forest Park will be at the heart of a thriving diverse economy,

19

providing a hub for family leisure and adventure sport. The natural environment will be rich and diverse. A network of open spaces and routes accessible for all connects the Forest Park to the wider countryside and link to our local communities.” And in particular welcome, BFP5 to “Enhance the natural environment through targeted delivery of green infrastructure programmes that improve and expand the biodiversity and landscape quality of the Bold Forest Park area”. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change


Programmes Response relating to: Paragraph 7.2 (page 20) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: An additional aim to be added - suggested wording: “Create quality outdoor space with opportunities for physical activity and positive use of green space to improve mental health and well-being of the local community and visitors”. Officer Recommendation: Comment acknowledged, recommend additional aim added. Outcome: Agree to change. Publication Version to include supplementary aim as suggested. Decision: Agree change

8. Strategic Development Policy

Representation No. 030 Response Ref. DBFP10 Name: Rachael A. Bust Organisation: The Coal Authority Response relating to: BFP 1: Preferred Strategic Approach - A Sustainable Forest Park (page 21) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary: The Coal Authority supports the overall principle of the Area Action Plan and the objectives it seeks to achieve. In particular the continued efforts to achieve social, economic and

20

environmental regeneration, in areas affected by a legacy of historic coal mining, is laudable and is to be supported. Officer Recommendation: Support noted and welcomed. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change Representation No. xx Response Ref. DBFP14 Name: Roger Bush Organisation: Mersey Valley Golf & Country Club

Ltd. Response relating to: BFP 1: Preferred Strategic Approach - A Sustainable Forest Park (page 21) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary of Comments: “Promoting current employment sites within Bold Forest Park”. The primary objective should be to create as many new employment opportunities as possible. Full time and part time jobs. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. The Bold Forest Park AAP will form part of the overall Local Plan for St. Helens and complement existing planning policies including adopted Core Strategy Policy CE 1 outlines the Council’s strategy for a strong and sustainable economy which supports the creation of and expansion of small businesses. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change


(formerly English Heritage) Response relating to: BFP 1: Preferred Strategic Approach - A Sustainable Forest Park (page 21) Agree/disagree? Comment only Response and/or Summary of Comments: One of the core dimensions of sustainable development in the NPPF is the protection and enhancement of the historic environment. The strategic development policy does not refer to the historic environment in its list of strategic actions. The Plan needs to be amended to reflect this and show how it is will to conserve and enhance the Plan area’s heritage assets. Opportunities for education and understanding of the historic environment should also be included. The Plan needs to also demonstrate how it will deal with the asset (Old

21

Moat House, Medieval Moated House) that is currently on the Heritage at Risk register, as well as the other Scheduled Monuments and heritage assets. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. The Bold Forest Park AAP will form part of the overall Local Plan for St. Helens and any proposed development within the Forest Park will be subject to relevant development plan polices including Policy CQL 4 ‘Heritage and Landscape’ in the adopted Core Strategy 2012 which seeks to protect, conserve, preserve and enhance the borough’s historic built environment. To address concerns raised and further highlight the presence of heritage assets within the Bold Forest Park, it is recommended that additional detailed consideration of the local historical environment as a key issue should be included in the Publication Version with policy on heritage amended to support the delivery of its conservation and enhancement. Outcome: Agree to make changes to the Publication Version to enhance and strengthen the Plan’s consideration of built heritage. In particular: elaborate on heritage as a Key Issue providing additional evidence based information on the Forest Park’s built heritage including details of listed heritage assets; and amend Policy BFP ENV3: Heritage to set out more clearly how the AAP policy will ensure and deliver the protection and enhancement of the Forest Parks’ heritage assets. Decision: Partial change

Representation No. 032 Response Ref. DBFP18 Name: Patrick Fox Organisation: Heart of Glass Response relating to: BFP 1: Preferred Strategic Approach - A Sustainable Forest Park (page 21) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary: I think the Bold Forest Area Action plan is a timely and necessary piece of work that could be hugely beneficial to the borough. Bold Forest Park is already the site of the internationally significant artwork The Dream, it is my strong feeling that the presence of this artwork presents a unique opportunity and starting point from which to build an arts driven engagement / community / health / economic and well-being strategy linked to Bold Forest Park which would have a significant community, social and economic impact to the wider borough of St. Helens and position Bold Forest Park as a regionally and nationally attractive destination. As Director of the new Creative People and Places programme Heart of Glass – a 1.5 million arts investment in art in the borough – we have the in-house expertise to explore how we might build an ‘art park’ strategy for Bold Forest Park, this could include performance spaces, art trails, digital commissions, oral histories and community led projects that could strategically culminate in Bold Forest Park becoming the Northwest’s answer to Yorkshire Sculpture Park – a visitor attraction that attracts hundreds of thousands annually. A connected dialogue between local authority, Mersey forest and heart of glass could leverage significant arts funding to undertake such an initiative. We have the opportunity to create our own Yorkshire Sculpture Park / New York’s High Line. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. Arts related development has been identified as a key aspect in achieving the aims and objectives of the Bold Forest Park AAP and the council would welcome the opportunity to expand partnerships to deliver arts

22

initiatives. The Publication draft of the AAP should seek provide further detail as to how arts trails can incorporated within ‘hub’ sites in the Forest Park. Outcome: Agree to change provide detail on how arts development will be incorporated in the Forest Park as part of indicative Hub Sites. Decision: Partial change

Representation No. 033 Response Ref. DBFP20 Name: Kate McClean Organisation: Taylor Wimpey Response relating to: BFP 1: Preferred Strategic Approach - A Sustainable Forest Park (page 21) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: We support the intention of this policy which acknowledges the importance of 'partners' in the pursuit of an economic focus underpinned by environmental sustainability. Any development that takes place within the BFAAP will need to ensure new development assists in enhancing and improving the landscape character and ensuring built development is of an appropriate scale and the policy recognises this. TW continually seeks to create developments that contain attractive landscaping schemes and in this case would ensure that that on site landscaping proposals would complement the wider landscaping objectives of the BFAAP. Officer Recommendation: Support noted. The AAP acknowledges as a key issue the potential of land within the Bold Forest Park to meet some of the Borough’s strategic housing need although the AAP itself does not formally allocate land for residential development. It is recommended this recognition is strengthened and consideration given to including policy setting out how the land in the Forest Park will contribute to meeting the borough’s identified strategic land use needs within the framework of the wider St. Helens Local Plan. Outcome: Agree to make changes to the Publication Version to clarify the role of the AAP in meeting the wider strategic land use needs of the Borough. In particular: expand on ‘meeting strategic needs of the Borough’ as a Key Issue; and introduce new policy to set out how the release of land in the Bold Forest Park to meet identified housing/employment needs would be considered in line with the APPs objectives. Decision: Partial change

9. Developing the Forest Park Economy

Representation No. 034 Response Ref. DBFP8 Name: Joanna Male Organisation: Gregory Gray Associates (on behalf of

Wyevale Garden Centres)

23

Response relating to: Policy BFP Econ 1: Supporting Economic Growth (page 25) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary: In relation to the preferred options for the Bold Forest AAP, our client is generally supportive of the approach adopted which seeks to balance an economic focus with environmental sustainability. In particular, the wording of Policy BFP Econ 1 is welcomed for the support that it offers proposals which support economic growth within the Forest Park which is considered to be consistent with the aims of para. 28 of the NPPF which requires planning policies to support economic growth in rural areas. Officer Recommendation: Comments and support for policy noted. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 035 Response Ref. DBFP14 Name: Roger Bush Organisation: Mersey Valley Golf & Country Club

Ltd. Response relating to: Policy BFP Econ 2: Addressing Worklessness (page 26) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary of Comments: Large majority of new jobs created should be filled by local recruitment. The majority of our staff live within the Bold Park area. We offer apprenticeships and find it an excellent means to produce quality staff. Officer Recommendation: Comments and support for policy noted. The Council is committed to working with partners to achieve the aim of reducing wordlessness within the Bold Forest Park and surrounding areas. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

10. Delivering the Infrastructure

Representation No. 036 Response Ref. DBFP10 Name: Rachael A. Bust Organisation: The Coal Authority

24

Response relating to: Infrastructure Development Policies (page 29-32) Agree/disagree? Comment only Response and/or Summary: The Coal Authority has no preference for any of the spatial development options, however the potential recreational hubs at Sutton Manor, Clock Face Colliery Country Park and Colliers Moss Common all contain mine entries. Whilst these mine entries need not prevent the development of new built facilities and public access they do need to be considered in relation to both their locations and their current condition. Any new proposed built facilities, such as visitor buildings should not be sited above or within the influencing zone of mine entries, even when they have been treated. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. Proposals for recreation hubs involving built development will be subject to the relevant development management control procedures including consideration of risks associated with the former mine workings and necessary notification of the Coal Authority as a statutory consultation body. It is recommended that details of former coal mine entries and their locations are identified in the Supporting Technical Document. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Technical Supporting Document to be amended to include details of former coal mine entries and their locations. Decision: No change

Representation No. 037 Response Ref. DBFP11 Name: Alex Naughton Organisation: Merseytravel Response relating to: Infrastructure Development Policies (pages 29-32) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary of Comments: We agree with Sutton Manor as a visitor gateway hub. But Merseytravel feels that there should be consideration given to, as part of this, making Sutton Manor also a public transport hub for sustainable access to the Bold Forest Park. As a transport hub it should have bus services linking the visitor gateway with key destinations such as St Helens Town Centre, Warrington, Omega employment area, rail stations etc. In the longer term consideration could be given to making such bus links more innovative with vehicles powered by low emission alternative fuels. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. Sutton Manor is not seen as suitable for a transport hub. A more realistic option would be to develop it at Lea Green Station or St Helens Junction Station. Outcome: Publication Version to give further consideration to sustainable access to the Park as part of Policy on Creating an Accessible Forest Park. Decision: Partial change

25

Representation No. 038 Response Ref. DBFP15 Name: Kevin Usher Organisation: Warrington BC Response relating to: Infrastructure Development Policies (pages 29-32) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: The Council has a few concerns on the detailed wording of specific aspects of the AAP that we would like to make, which are as follows: The preferred route to access the Park from Junction 7 of the M62 (Page 31 of document) is supported. However, it is noted that the plan makes reference to Clay Lane Recreation Ground in the proposed Recreation Hub Development Strategy. This could have the potential to increase vehicular traffic passing through Burtonwood Village as the hub is promoted to users. WBC would have concerns about access to the Park being promoted from Junction 8 of the M62. Junction 8 is the primary access point serving Warrington’s Strategic employment site at Omega and the Village of Burtonwood. The Council would not wish to see any significant additional increase in the volumes of traffic using this junction or the road network serving Burtonwood Village. There seems to be very little reference to the improvement of cross boundary walking and cycling links between Burtonwood Village, the Forest Park and access to the rail station, jobs and local shops. We would like to see more reference to improving these cross boundary links between St Helens and Warrington in the AAP. The Council would welcome the opportunity of being involved in these discussions with St Helens MBC regarding the cross boundary improvements as part of the Burtonwood Area Transport Study. There is some concern that the emphasis in the APP seems to be on “activities”. There should be more emphasis put on enjoyment of the countryside for it's own sake. Officer Recommendation: Support from WBC for the preferred access route into the Forest Park from Junction 7 of the M62 is welcomed. WBC’s concern over potential increases in vehicular traffic through the promotion of a visitor hub at the Colliers Moss Common / Wheatacre/ Clay Lane Recreation Ground is acknowledged. The AAP has always considered Junction 7 to be the main vehicular access to the Forest Park. However, it is recommended that the Publication Version re-emphasises and strengthens this stance, particularly concerning the section on ‘Delivering the Infrastructure’ and policies on Recreational Hubs and Creating an Accessible Forest Park. Comments on the cross boundary linkages between St.Helens and Warrington are also acknowledged and further reference to the how the AAP will be accessed from and link to Burtonwood Village in neighbouring Warrington is recommended for the Publication Version. Comments on the AAP’s emphasis on activities are noted. It is considered that whilst emphasis is placed on encouraging and promoting activities in the Forest Park, that the AAP does, through its Aims and Objectives, seek to encourage the enjoyment of the outdoors within the setting of the park in general. Outcome: Agree to amend policies in the Publication Version on Recreational Hubs and Creating an Accessible Forest Park to emphasise use of Junction 7 of the M62 as the

26

preferred access discouraging Junction 8, and include details of access and linkages to the Forest Park from Burtonwood Village. In response to the issues raised, it should also be noted that Transport Officers from St.Helens B.C., Warrington B.C. and the Mersey Forest met in February 2015 to discuss cross boundary movements. Decision: Partial change

Representation No. 039 Response Ref. DBFP20 Name: Kate McClean Organisation: Taylor Wimpey Response relating to: Infrastructure Development Policies (pages 29-32) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: Taylor Wimpey supports the vision to strengthen the linkages between individual sites and throughout the Forest Park. TW's proposals for Clock Face are closely linked to this infrastructure delivery. The proposal provides opportunities to create strong pedestrian/cycle links between the two developments and in addition, provide further connections to Sutton Manor, Clockface and surrounding Forest Park areas. We also support the 'Recreational Hubs' proposed to be located at Sutton Manor and Clockface, TW's sites are sited well in relation to these Hub facilities and will link existing and future residents to these recreational centres; improving leisure opportunities and routes around the Park. Officer Recommendation: Comments and support for proposals to strengthen linkages and to create Recreational Hubs noted. It is recommended that additional detail on the Recreational Hubs is provided in the Publication Version. Outcome: Agree to change to included indicative details of recreational hubs in the Forest Park Area in the Publication Version. Decision: Agree change

Representation No. 040 Response Ref. DBFP6 Name: Karl Briggs Organisation: None Response relating to: Policy BFP INF 1 Preferred Option: Sutton Manor Visitor Hub (page 29) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary: The visitors centre at the area of the Smithy Manor is also very much needed. This is also the best route as its easy accessible to the public. There is only one issue and it’s with the pub itself. The centre either needs to be completely purpose built or if the pub is going to be used, it needs to be completely refurbished inside.

27

Officer Recommendation: Comments and support for the locating of a ‘Visitor Hub’ at Sutton Manor are welcomed. Whilst recognising the existing facilities the pub can and does offer, the preferred approach is the creation of a purpose built facility. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change Representation No. 041 Response Ref. DBFP9 Name: Cath Shea Organisation: St Helens Council Arts Service Response relating to: Policy BFP INF 1 Preferred Option: Sutton Manor Visitor Hub (page 29) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary: Regarding the consideration for small business units to be based at the site, including Creative Industries. Since Bold Forest Park is ideally situated between Liverpool and Manchester, this could be a great site for artist studios if spaces with affordable. It would be worth considering if artists could be attracted to consider locating their studio practice, whether they are at Bold Industrial Estate, in the small business units or elsewhere. It is well evidenced that attracting artists into an area can contribute to its regeneration. With this in mind, supporting artists to create an artist-led space within the area, if a suitable dis-used building were available would be something worth considering (an industrial space or dis-used pub (e.g. Green Dragon). Officer Recommendation: Comments and support noted. Crafts and the creative industries are considered to be complimentary to the aims and objective of the Forest Park and to be encouraged. The identified hub at Sutton Manor seeks to provide space for small businesses to operate which could include studios or workspaces. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 042 Response Ref. DBFP13 Name: Peter Nurse Organisation: St Helens & District Referees' Society Response relating to: Policy BFP INF 1 Preferred Option: Sutton Manor Visitor Hub (page 29) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary of Comments: I would strongly support and encourage proposals to enhance cycle provision and infrastructure within the forest park. Cycling has grown massively in recent years and the forest park should look to tap in to that growth for its own success. I would encourage you to look at the huge success stories of Lee & Crag Quarry (Bacup), Clayton Vale (Manchester) and Bickerstaffe Cycle Track . All of these relatively small mountain bike trail centres have attracted large numbers of cyclists from a wide area and have all received

28

national press coverage. The Merseyside & Cheshire area is currently almost devoid of any purpose build mountain bike facilities. The provision of even a small amount of purpose built mountain bike trail would be a huge coup for St Helens and the Bold Forest Park. Sites at Sutton Manor and Colliers Moss would both be ideally suited to mountain bike trail provision. A well-built blue graded trail at either or both former colliery sites would see the car parking available full with rider alone. Officer Recommendation: Comments and support noted. Cycling has been clearly identified by supporting evidence as a key activity to be promoted in the Forest Park. It is recommended the Publication Version adds further details as how the park can be utilised for cycling such how the hubs can accommodate cyclists and illustrate maps of trails. Outcome: Include further details in the Publication Version on how provision for cyclists will be made in the Forest Park. Decision: Agree change

Representation No. 043 Response Ref. DBFP6 Name: Karl Briggs Organisation: None Response relating to: Policy BFP INF2 Preferred Option: Recreation Hub Development Strategy (page 30) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary: The idea of adventure sports located on the area is excellent; there is a lot that can be done to bring people into the area and St Helens as a whole. New art located around Dream is also needed, unfortunately The Dream seems to be just rotting away at the moment, very little has been done with it, I know vandalism has been a problem, but if the area is improved and used a lot more the vandalism with hopefully decrease and at least the money spent on the dream wont have been a waste. New signage around St Helens will also be a good idea, it will promote the area and show that ‘Bold Forest Park’ is a genuine concept in St Helens and a genuine visitors zone, not just an empty piece of land. In the future if there are designs drawn around the visitor’s centre they would be great to see on the website. Also a map could be designed to show were the particular sports zones will be located. Anything visual which promotes the area is always good. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. As focal point for the Forest Park, The Dream is recognised as a key asset and the Council and its partners maintain efforts to ensure the sculpture does not deteriorate and fall victim to vandalism. A key issue identified relating to the development of the Forest Park’s Infrastructure is the need for physical improvements such as car parks, tracks trails and signage centred around a visitor hub; all of which the AAP seeks to achieve. In relation to visuals, it is recommended the Publication Version adds further details to illustrate indicative layouts of the Recreation Hub and where activities can take place. Outcome: Include further illustrative details in the Publication Version on the Recreation Hub at Sutton Manor and suggested areas/trails where sports/activities should take place. Decision: Agree change

29

Representation No. 044 Response Ref. DBFP9 Name: Cath Shea Organisation: St Helens Council Arts Service Response relating to: Policy BFP INF2 Preferred Option: Recreation Hub Development Strategy (page 30) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary: It is great to see a sculpture trail incorporated at INF 2.1 Sutton Manor and it is mentioned on page 56 of Action Plan to look at more art works across the Forest Park which I feel needs to be really ambitious in its planning. The opportunity to create a sculpture park which spans across Bold Forest Park with artworks by internationally renowned artists across the Forest Park (aiming for a substantial work at each site) would encourage visits across sites utilising cycle trails and meet the tourism objective. Aiming to have really ambitious, high quality artwork is important when planning the sculpture trail and not creating a trail which is mediocre. There is an opportunity to make the Bold Forest Park sculpture trail unlike any other and to create work which really does inspire people to visit, making it a ‘must-see’ destination for people in the region. The scope to attract visitors through high quality arts events could also put the site on the map in the region for arts organisations looking to create site specific temporary work. Officer Recommendation: Comments and support to for the encouragement of art and arts based activities in the Forest Park are welcomed. It is recommended that further detail of how arts trail and events space can be incorporated into the Park are included in the Publication Version. Outcome: Include detail in the Publication Version on the potential arts trail and provision for arts / events space. Decision: Partial change

Representation No. 045 Response Ref. DBFP2 Name: Antony Young Organisation: Dream Trail Race Response relating to: Policy BFP INF 3: Creating an Accessible Forest Park (page 31) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: There has been significant investment in refurbishing the disused railway line that runs south from Sutton Manor Park (The Mineral Line). In the policy document there was very little mention of this facility or details of any discussions with Halton BC about how this line can form part of the Forest Park Policy. Discussions with other neighbouring authorities were mentioned frequently. It is already apparent that cooperation between the councils regarding the access points to the line could be significantly improved despite the line only just opening. My suggestion is that the policy document should be extended to include services / leisure opportunities as far down as Rivendell Garden Centre as that would give park users access to another 1.5km-2km of trails and several access points.

30

Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. Whilst it appreciated the Mineral Line (running along the former Runcorn Gap Railway) presents a key linkage between the St. Helens and Halton authority areas, the scope of the Bold Forest Park AAP only extends to the administrative St. Helens boundary. St. Helens Council will continue to engage with its neighbours and seek to improve the accessibility of linkages and routes into the Forest Park including the Mineral Line. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 046 Response Ref. DBFP11 Name: Alex Naughton Organisation: Merseytravel Response relating to: Policy BFP INF 3: Creating an Accessible Forest Park (page 31) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary of Comments: We welcome the focus on creating a network of cycling and walking routes through the park and to link with surrounding areas. Public transport and sustainable modes access should be an integral part of the Plan and not something that is seen as an afterthought that partners such as St Helens Council and Merseytravel should fund later and retrofit. Access to the park by public transport and sustainable modes should be actively promoted. More clarity would be useful on how the public transport and sustainable modes access improvements would be funded and be self-sufficient Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. Recommend further consideration is given to how the Plan promotes public transport within the Forest Park area and how improvements are funded. Outcome: Agree to change Publication Version to include details on the promotion of public transport to the Park and the funding of transport improvements and as part Delivering the Infrastructure section. Decision: Agree change

Representation No. 047 Response Ref. DBFP13 Name: Peter Nurse Organisation: St Helens & District Referees' Society Response relating to: Policy BFP INF 3: Creating an Accessible Forest Park (page 31) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary of Comments: I'm in favour of encouraging activities within the Forest Park that draw people to the area. It does however appear that the consultation is trying to catch as many niche markets as possible rather than focusing on core / known activities. Is there enough market for Segway riding and dog sledding to make them viable? My view is that the focus should be

31

on enhancing the experience / infrastructure for the main groups (walking / cycling) that we know are already using the forest park on a regular basis. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted and acknowledged. Whilst a wide range of potential activities are considered in the AAP, walking, cycling and horse riding are recognised and as the key activities and are proposed to form the focus of the Recreation Hub development. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 048 Response Ref. DBFP20 Name: Kate McClean Organisation: Taylor Wimpey Response relating to: Infrastructure Development Policies (pages 29-32) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: We support the proposed policy of ensuring new development contributes to the improvement and choice of access both in terms of public transport and walking, cycling and horse riding within the BFAAP. Residential development within the BFAAP will provide the critical mass of population that will assist in sustaining public transport infrastructure. The development of sites within the BFAAP area will provide the opportunity to create a secondary network of tracks and trails between these sites; connecting with more principle routes in the surrounding area. Our aims are therefore complementary in this regard. Officer Recommendation: Comments and support for policies noted. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

11. Meeting the Strategic Needs of the Borough Representation No. 049 Response Ref. DBFP14 Name: Roger Bush Organisation: Mersey Valley Golf & Country Club

Ltd. Response relating to: Policy BFP SN 1 Preferred Option: Planning Obligations (page 33) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary of Comments:

32

As a recreation hub we can provide (a) designated car parking for Park visitors (b) designated office space for distribution of promotional material, not only for the Park, but also for all businesses within the Park area.

Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. It is recommended the Publication Version should further consider the potential of the Mersey Valley Golf and Country Club in contributing to the delivery of infrastructure within the Forest Park area. Outcome: Publication Version to identify the potential contribution of the Mersey Valley Golf and Country Club to the delivery of infrastructure in the Forest Park area. Decision: Agree change

Representation No. 050 Response Ref. DBFP20 Name: Kate McClean Organisation: Taylor Wimpey Response relating to: Policy BFP SN 1 Preferred Option: Planning Obligations (page 33) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: We consider that the BFAAP provides a planning policy framework for the collection of planning obligations. We support the intentions of this policy, however it should be made clear that contributions requested should be proportionate to the developments proposed and should not undermine the viability of a proposal. Paragraph 173 of the NPPF is clear that developments should not be burdened with planning obligations to the extent that they cannot be viably delivered. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. The Bold Forest Park AAP acknowledges its position within the wider planning policy context and any proposal received would be appraised against the relevant national and local planning policies. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change Representation No. 051 Response Ref. DBFP21 Name: Helen Williams Organisation: St. Helens Council, Public Health

Programmes Response relating to: Policy BFP SN 1 Preferred Option: Planning Obligations (page 33) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary: Within the justification: amend to: “Ensuring access to the Forest Park will help to encourage healthy lifestyles and provide accessible opportunities to the wider population for exercise, this addresses health inequalities. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. Purpose of policy is to ensure developer contributions are directed towards the park. This in itself will enable the Park to meet the

33

objective of creating quality outdoor space with opportunities for physical activities and positive use of green space to improve mental health and well-being of the local community and visitors. Outcome: No change to Publication Version Decision: No change

12. Safeguarding the Environment Policies

Representation No. 052 Response Ref. DBFP22 Name: Kate Wheeler Organisation: Natural England Response relating to: Policy BFP ENV1: Enhancing Landscape Character (page 35) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: Natural England welcome Policy BFP ENV1: Enhancing Landscape Character; complimenting wildlife protection measures set out in Core Strategy Policy CQL3 which complements the core strategy policies. Officer Recommendation: Comments and support for policy noted. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 053 Response Ref. DBFP22 Name: Kate Wheeler Organisation: Natural England Response relating to: Policy BFP ENV2: Biodiversity Preferred Option: Ecological Network (page 35) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: Natural England welcome Policy BFP ENV2: Biodiversity Preferred Option: Ecological Network; complimenting wildlife protection measures set out in Core Strategy Policy CQL3 which complements the core strategy policies. Officer Recommendation: Comments and support for policy noted. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 054 Response Ref. DBFP6

34

Name: Karl Briggs Organisation: None Response relating to: Policy BFP ENV 3: Heritage (page 36) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary: The heritage of the site is a great idea; this is what makes this area different from other forest areas. Officer Recommendation: Comments and support for policy welcomed. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change Representation No. 055 Response Ref. DBFP9 Name: Cath Shea Organisation: St Helens Council Arts Service Response relating to: Policy BFP ENV 3: Heritage (page 36) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary: It is great to see the Heritage Trail included in plans. Additionally the site would benefit from a small Heritage Centre as part of the Visitor Centre. There are so many objects and stories relating to mining heritage which there would be great interest in, not only locally but from a Tourist perspective. Obviously it could not compete with the National Coal Museum at Wakefield but a collection of local objects and stories would really be worth displaying as part of the site and if it were presented creatively, it could attract people that are visiting Wakefield to also visit Sutton Manor. A small digital arts project carried out recently by Arts Service to commemorate 30 years since Miners Strike unearthed a wealth of local material but we only scratched the surface. http://re-dock.org/portfolio/30-years-of Capturing the local heritage would undoubtedly be a project the Heritage Lottery would be interested in. It would be a great shame to miss the opportunity of making this heritage visible to visitors. The story of Dream should undoubtedly also be incorporated into the Visitor Centre Officer Recommendation: Comments and support for policy noted. The AAP recognises the area’s heritage as a key asset and seeks to create the provide facilities for education as part of visitor centre / recreation hub. The Council and its partners would welcome opportunity to work with the Arts Service to explore opportunities to showcase the area’s mining heritage. It is recommended that the Publication Version considers the potential for visitor facilities to showcase exhibits/projects relating to the area’s mining heritage. Outcome: Agree change to Publication Version to consider the potential for facilities in the Forest Park to educate visitors on the area’s industrial heritage as part of Policy on Heritage. Decision: Partial change

http://re-dock.org/portfolio/30-years-of

35


(formerly English Heritage) Response relating to: Policy BFP ENV 3: Heritage (page 36) Agree/disagree? Comment only Response and/or Summary of Comments: The Plan at present fails to contain policies or actions which will conserve and enhance the Action Plan Area’s heritage assets including those on the National Heritage at Risk register. Whilst this policy is titled heritage, it is focussed on the introduction of a heritage trail only. English Heritage supports the proposal for a heritage trail but the Plan needs to demonstrate how it will conserve and enhance the area’s historic environment, including those assets at risk. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. To address concerns raised and further highlight the presence of heritage assets (including those ‘at Risk’) within the Bold Forest Park, it is recommended that additional detailed consideration of the local historical environment as a key issue should be included in the Publication Version with policy on heritage amended to support the delivery of its conservation and enhancement. Outcome: Agree to make changes to the Publication Version to enhance and strengthen the Plan’s consideration of built heritage. In particular: elaborate on heritage as a Key Issue providing additional evidence based information on the Forest Park’s built heritage including details of listed heritage assets; and amend Policy BFP ENV3: Heritage to set out more clearly how the AAP policy will ensure and deliver the protection and enhancement of the Forest Parks’ heritage assets (including those ‘at Risk’). Decision: Agree change

13. Meeting the Needs of the Community

Representation No. 057 Response Ref. DBFP20 Name: Kate McClean Organisation: Taylor Wimpey Response relating to: Policy BFP Com 1: Community Network (page 37) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: The community is the main beneficiary of the BFAAP and it is therefore correct that they should have a role in its development. TW would however like to see this extended to specifically include developer stakeholders within this group. TW has a strong track record in terms of community engagement and therefore believe that by working with other

36

community groups and individuals we will contribute to strengthening both the vision and the delivery of the BFAAP. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. The Council recognises the contribution developers can make as key delivery agents, however, considers the addition of “Other Stakeholders with an interest in Bold Forest Park” to be more appropriate Outcome: Change Publication Version to include “Other Stakeholders with an interest in Bold Forest Park”. Decision: Partial change

Representation No. 058 Response Ref. DBFP20 Name: Kate McClean Organisation: Taylor Wimpey Response relating to: Policy BFP Com 2: Supporting Community Hubs (page 37) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: We support the emphasis that the policy places on the local community. TW currently supports various sports clubs and community groups and would like to explore opportunities for similar working relationships in the BFAAP area. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. The Council recognises and acknowledges the support developers can offer towards community groups. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 059 Response Ref. DBFP6 Name: Karl Briggs Organisation: None Response relating to: Policy BFP Com 3: Establish Bold Forest Park as a flagship resource for Health and Wellbeing (page 38) Agree/disagree? Agree Response and/or Summary: Anything that helps to improve people’s health and welling is also welcome, maybe a forest gym could be set up? Officer Recommendation: Comments and support for policy noted. A key aim of the Forest Park is to create quality outdoor space with opportunities for physical activities and positive use of green space to improve mental health and well-being. The concept of forest gym would therefore align with this. Outcome: No change to Publication Version.

37

Decision: No change


Programmes Response relating to: Policy BFP Com 3: Establish Bold Forest Park as a flagship resource for Health and Wellbeing (page 38) Agree/disagree? Comment Response and/or Summary: Key delivery items - establishment of Bold Forest Park as a “Natural Health Service” delivery point. It is recommended that this terminology is not used. Natural Health Service is a brand of a local provider. Preferred title: “Bold Forest Park as place of delivery for community health improvement.” Justification: Local obesity data should be included in addition or in replacement of national data; In St Helens 38% of the adult population are overweight and 29% are obese. For children 25.9% of 4-5 year olds are overweight or obese, 36.7% of 10-11 years olds. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. Recommended that changes to policy wording are made as per above. Outcome: Agree to Change Publication Version as per comments. Decision: Agree change

16. Implementation Plan (2014 - 2017)


Programmes Response relating to: Paragraph 16.0 (page 45) Agree/disagree? Comment only Response and/or Summary: Public Health within the Council would welcome a voice on the Bold Forest Park Steering Group. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. It is recommended that Public Health are added to the list of Steering Group members. Outcome: Agree to Change Publication Version to include Public Health as members of the Steering Group/Implementation Group.

38



(formerly English Heritage) Response relating to: Theme 4: Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment (page 49) Agree/disagree? Comment only Response and/or Summary of Comments: We would welcome an action that conserves and enhances the historic environment whilst at the same time promoting opportunities for education and information. In particular, the Plan needs to show how it will deal with heritage assets at risk. The area has a number of scheduled monuments (4) one of which is at risk as well as other heritage assets. This should be included within this section. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. To address concerns raised and further highlight the presence of heritage assets (including those ‘at Risk’) within the Bold Forest Park, it is recommended that additional detailed consideration of the local historical environment as a key issue should be included in the Publication Version with policy on heritage amended to support the delivery of its conservation and enhancement. Outcome: Agree to make changes to the Publication Version to enhance and strengthen the Plan’s consideration of built heritage. In particular: elaborate on heritage as a Key Issue providing additional evidence based information on the Forest Park’s built heritage including details of listed heritage assets; and amend Policy BFP ENV3: Heritage to set out more clearly how the AAP policy will ensure and deliver the protection and enhancement of the Forest Parks’ heritage assets (including those ‘at Risk’). Decision: Agree change

Annexe 1. Evidence Base Document List Representation No. 063 Response Ref. DBFP16 Name: Emily Hrycan Organisation: Historic England

(formerly English Heritage) Response relating to: Annexe 1 (pages 51-51) Agree/disagree? Comment only Response and/or Summary of Comments:

39

A sound AAP should be based on an up-to-date evidence base which includes reference to the historic environment. At the moment, there does not appear to be any in relation to the historic environment. Potential sources of evidence include the National Heritage List for England; Historic Environment Record; Heritage at Risk Register; Historic Characterisation Assessments; in house and local knowledge/expertise. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. Details of the built heritage within the Forest Park are included in the Supporting Technical Document (section 3.5). These details include those Scheduled Ancient Monument and Listed Buildings and sites of archaeological interest located within the AAP area. To address concerns raised and further highlight the presence of heritage assets (including those ‘at Risk’) within the Bold Forest Park, it is recommended that additional detailed consideration of the local historical environment as a key issue should be included in the Publication Version with policy on heritage amended to support the delivery of its conservation and enhancement. Outcome: Agree to make changes to the Publication Version to enhance and strengthen the Plan’s consideration of built heritage. In particular: elaborate on heritage as a Key Issue providing additional evidence based information on the Forest Park’s built heritage including details of listed heritage assets; and amend Policy BFP ENV3: Heritage to set out more clearly how the AAP policy will ensure and deliver the protection and enhancement of the Forest Parks’ heritage assets (including those ‘at Risk’). Decision: Agree change

SUPPORTING TECHNICAL DOCUMENT

Representation No. 064 Response Ref. DBFP22 Name: Kate Wheeler Organisation: Natural England Response relating to: General comment on Supporting Technical Document Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: Natural England welcome the detail provided in the supporting technical document and is pleased to see the references and detail of the National Character Area profiles. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 065 Response Ref. DPFP12

40

Name: Andrew Tait Organisation: Steven Abbott Associates LLP (on behalf of Mr John Cotton)

Response relating to: Paragraph 2.2 (page 58) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: I note from paragraph 2.2 on page 58 of the document that there is a need to accommodate a significant number of dwellings which will require some areas of the urban edge to be extended into the greenbelt. The paragraph further notes that the process of selecting where across the Borough this will occur will be carried out as part of the Council’s allocations process rather than as part of the development of the Forest Park Area Action Plan. It is noted that one of the key reasons for the Forest Area Action Plan is due to the potential increased pressure of housing development in combination with neighbouring authorities’ plans leading to greater recreational pressure on the Liverpool Bay Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site which could increase disturbance to a number of sensitive species. Consequently it would seem that siting any new housing in St. Helens with good access to the Forest Park would further nudge people towards using the Forest Area rather than travelling a greater distance to the more sensitive Special Protection Area. In general planning terms it would also seem to be more sustainable to site development next to what will be a new recreational facility and also site development in good proximity to public transport corridors. Officer Recommendation: Support noted. The AAP acknowledges as a key issue the potential of land within the Bold Forest Park to meet some of the Borough’s strategic housing need although the AAP itself does not formally allocate land for residential development. This is clearly set out in both the AAP and the Technical Support document. Outcome: Agree to make changes to the Publication Version to clarify the role of the AAP in meeting the wider strategic land use needs of the Borough. Decision: Partial change

Representation No. 066 Response Ref. DBFP4 Name: Dave Dickinson Organisation: Highways Agency Response relating to: Paragraph 5.6.2 (page 77) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: The trip figures included in the ‘Supporting Technical Document’ (chapter 5.6.2) summarise the number of arrivals/departures expected for the park. While the text in chapter 5.6.2 states that the standard mechanism for calculating trips is via the TRICS database, the table of figures listed is generated from ‘average number of arrivals and departures on weekends at 14 Country Parks across Gt. Britain’. The number of trips proposed within the table listed, and proximity of car parks to the Highways Agency network, do not pose any issues to our network. However, I would ask if any further specific TRICS based analysis related to just this site is due to be completed? If so, the Agency would welcome sight of this.

41

Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. The TRICS analysis could narrow down the analysis from country parks across Great Britain to just those in the northwest but, because of the lack of such sites within the TRICS database, that would result in an analysis based on a smaller sample than the 14 parks used and would not be in accordance with TRICS good practice of using the largest available sample. Given that the Park doesn't currently have its full formal parking provision a specific TRICS analysis is not due to be completed at this stage. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

THE SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL (SA) AND HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT (HRA) Representation No. 067 Response Ref. DBFP6 Name: Karl Briggs Organisation: None Response relating to: General comment on SA/HRA Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: I think the idea of the trees being planted to eventually be used for wood is a great idea, it will create a business and the money made could be used back into the forest and for every tree cut down, two more should be planted in it’s place. I think anything to encourage more wildlife into the area will also benefit people’s experience of the forest as a whole. Altogether the whole idea sounds fantastic, if it happens! Officer Recommendation: Suggestions and comments noted. Increasing tree cover in the Bold Forest Park area is a key element of the overall preferred strategic approach as outlined in draft Policy BFP1: A Sustainable Forest Park. This is to be implemented through seeking additional and / or improved landscaping from new developments and working jointly with the Mersey Forest and landowners on project implementation. Outcome: No change to Publication Version. Decision: No change

Representation No. 068 Response Ref. DBFP22 Name: Kate Wheeler Organisation: Natural England Response relating to: General comment on SA Agree/disagree? Comment Only

42

Response and/or Summary: The SA clearly outlines both negative and uncertain impacts. We note there are some unresolved uncertainties in the SA. These negative and uncertain effects should be explored further in the next iteration of the SA as avoidance and/or mitigation measures may be required in order to reduce harm to the environment. As more information becomes available the findings should become more refined. Officer Recommendation: Comments noted. The SA carried out for the Publication Version will further explore and assess any negative and uncertain effects based on provision of further information. In many instances, a level of uncertainty will still be attached to some of these SA judgements, given the high level nature of policies in the AAP. Outcome: Agree to amendments to Publication Version where appropriate as part of the iterative SA process. Decision: Agree Change

Representation No. 069 Response Ref. DBFP16 Name: Emily Hrycan Organisation: Historic England Response relating to: SA Objective 2 Agree/disagree? Disagree Response and/or Summary of Comments: We have assessed the content of the Sustainability Appraisal against the policies contained in the Area Action Plan and we disagree with some of the conclusions reached regarding the effects they will have on the historic environment. We disagree with the SA which states that the preferred option policy ‘BFP 1: Preferred Strategic Approach - A Sustainable Forest Park’ proposes a balanced economic and environmental approach to the park and will therefore have a positive impact on SA Objective 2. The plan area includes and affects a number of heritage assets including 4 scheduled monuments (one of which is on the National Heritage at Risk Register) and grade II listed buildings, as well as other non-designated heritage assets. The NPPF requires that Plan policies should contain a positive strategy for the historic environment and show how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally. The Policy does not put forward a long term strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Therefore, the Plan Policy is considered to have a significant negative impact on the historic environment in the Plan Area and on the achievement of SA Objective 2. We disagree with the SA which states that the preferred option ‘Policy BFP ENV 3: Heritage’ will have a positive impact on SA Objective 2. The policy focuses on the creation of a heritage trail through the park and does not put forward a long term strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment in the Plan area. The NPPF requires that Plan policies should contain a positive strategy for the historic environment and show how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied

43

locally. Therefore, the Plan Policy is considered to have a significant negative impact on the historic environment in the Plan area and on the achievement of SA Objective 2. Officer Recommendation: The Bold Forest Park AAP will form part of the overall Local Plan for St. Helens and any proposed development within the Forest Park will be subject to relevant development plan polices including Policy CQL 4 ‘Heritage and Landscape’ in the adopted Core Strategy 2012 which seeks to protect, conserve, preserve and enhance the borough’s historic built environment. To address concerns raised and further highlight the presence of heritage assets within the Bold Forest Park, it is recommended that additional detailed consideration of the local historical environment as a key issue should be included in the Publication Version with policy on heritage amended to support the delivery of its conservation and enhancement. This amended policy is then to be re-appraised against SA Objective 2. Outcome: Agree to incorporate changes into the Publication Version to enhance and strengthen the Plan’s consideration of built heritage. In particular: elaborate on heritage as a Key Issue providing additional evidence based information on the Forest Park’s built heritage including details of listed heritage assets; and amend Policy BFP ENV3: Heritage to set out more clearly how the AAP policy will ensure and deliver the protection and enhancement of the Forest Parks’ heritage assets. The SA for the next stage of the Plan (Publication Version) is to re-appraise the amended policy against SA Objective 2 and report its conclusions. It should be noted that following ongoing dialogue with the Historic England, they consider that the recommended amendments to the Plan have addressed the issues raised. The changes to the Plan have subsequently been subject to SA which considered that these amendments have the potential to reduce significant negative effects on the heritage of the Park, if robustly applied, and that the score of a minor positive effect upon heritage (Objective 2) for ENV: 3 in the Draft Bold Forest AAP SA Report remains valid. Decision: Agree change

Representation No. 070 Response Ref. DBFP22 Name: Kate Wheeler Organisation: Natural England Response relating to: Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Agree/disagree? Comment Only Response and/or Summary: The conclusions reached in the HRA are “with a small number of policies proposing development or land cover change within the Forest Park, there was some uncertainty regarding the potential for reduced water quality or loss of supporting habitat and these were subject to further evaluation with the following results.” Firstly, for reduced water quality it states that, likely significant effects (LSE) on European sites in respect of water quality can be ruled out from the AAP subject to the following: As recommended in paragraph 4.3.4 of the Water Cycle Study, the Council:

44

Obtains confirmation from United Utilities that sufficient headroom exists at its treatment works to accommodate the growth proposed in the Borough.

Obtains confirmation from the Environment Agency that discharge consents to the River Mersey and Sankey Brook will be revised to accommodate the growth proposed in the Borough.

Requires new development to incorporate water efficiency measures, for example via development management policies in its forthcoming Allocations & Sustainable

Development Local Plan. Natural England agrees that these provisions may be adequate, however they have been not progressed yet and therefore LSE cannot at this stage be concluded. The Council has already assessed and concluded the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the designated site, alone or in combination with other plans and projects. This “likely significant effect” test acts as a coarse filter for all proposed plans and projects so directing attention to those which require further assessment. It is currently determined that the proposed plan or project is likely to have a significant effect, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, therefore an appropriate assessment must be carried out before a conclusion is drawn that this proposal is not likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination with other plans and projects on the designated sites. Loss of Supporting Habitat The Area Action Plan will result in afforestation of a significant area of land (the wooded area of the Forest Park will increase from 13% to 30%) that is currently in mainly agricultural use, being cultivated for wheat, oilseed rape, barley or legumes. It is Natural England’s opinion that there is not enough evidence in the HRA to conclude: ‘The predominantly arable nature of the land to be wooded or developed makes it unlikely that it provides significant inland supporting habitat for the wildfowl and wader bird interest of Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site which lies 5 km to the southwest of the Plan area. Furthermore, extensive areas of similar agricultural habitat occur in the wider area beyond the Forest Park boundaries. Changes in land use provided for by the AAP are therefore unlikely to result in significant effects on the qualifying features of the Mersey Estuary SPA or Ramsar site.’ The conclusions reached need to be robust and evidence based, and until more detailed evidence is provided we cannot advise on the conclusions reached. Officer Recommendation: Comments acknowledged. In order to inform the HRA’s Appropriate Assessment of the likely significant effects assessment on reduced water quality it is recommended that the confirmation is obtained from the relevant bodies (United Utilities and the EA) regarding treatment capacity and discharge consents. In order to fully inform the HRA’s Appropriate Assessment on the likely significant effects on supporting habitats, it is also recommended that further detailed evidence is obtained from relevant sources (MEAS / Mersey BioBank). Outcome: The HRA for the next stage of the Plan (Publication Version) will fully assess the likely significant effects on reduced water quality and the loss of supporting habitats setting (through Appropriate Assessment) out how these issues have been considered.

45

It has subsequently been concluded by the Appropriate Assessment that the AAP will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site in relation to reduced water quality or to loss of supporting habitat. It should be noted that there has been ongoing dialogue with Natural England on this issue who have been consulted on the Appropriate Assessment in advance of consultation on the Publication Version of the AAP. Natural England have subsequently confirmed their agreement with the conclusions reached by the HRA (in a letter dated 16.11.2015). Decision: No change

46

4. Summary of Changes

Section Summary of Changes

Reason(s)

Part 1: Context

1.0 Introduction Paragraph 1.2 - Text on Status and Purpose of Bold Forest Park Area Action Plan has been expanded to clarify the status of the AAP and how it will sit alongside other Local Plan documents. Reference to the need to contribute to meeting the Borough’s housing and employment needs made.

To offer clarity on the status of the AAP as part of the St. Helens Local Plan and highlight that land within the Forest Park will be needed to contribute housing and employment needs.

2.0 Policy Context Paragraph 2.3.1 – Reference to the latest Helens Plan 2015-2018 has been made. Paragraph 2.3.4 – Reference to the St Helens Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2013-2016 and its objectives has been made.

For accuracy in response to consultation representation from St. Helens Public Health. In response to consultation representation from St. Helens Public Health as a relevant local strategy.

3.0 Area Context Sub-section 3.1 has added emphasis on the public transport linkages to the Forest Park area. Sub-section 3.2 has been enhanced and illustrated to give a greater representation

To highlight the importance of sustainable access to the Forest Park In response to consultation representation from Merseytravel. To highlight the importance of local businesses as key delivery partners and give

47

some of the key businesses and attractions within the Forest Park.

a greater understanding (through illustrations and photographs) of the park and those livelihoods centre around it.

4.0 Research and Consultation Paragraph 4.8 has been added setting out in summary form to key issues raised from the consultation on the Preferred Options.

To highlight the level of support the Plan has attracted, to identify the key issues raised, and to demonstrate how the comments and representations have influenced the development and evolution of the Plan.

5.0 The Case for Bold Forest Park Paragraph 5.1 has additional points in support of the case for the Forest Park. These relate to:

- Contribution to St Helens Healthy Weight Strategy and St Helens Health and Well Being Strategy;

- Potential to improve the historic environment of the area;

- Recognising it as a landscape asset in the Atlantic Gateway Parklands Project

To strengthen the concept and case for the creation of Forest Park and in response to representations received during consultation.

6.0 Issues, Problems and Challenges Sub Section 6.1- Key Issue 1: Developing the Forest Park Economy has been expanded significantly to set out the market potential of the Forest Park and detail the potential behind key visitor activities. This includes:

- a bulleted list and table setting out the quantitative potential with regards to visitor income, net jobs and GVA as identified in the supporting evidence base (URS Economic Intelligence Gathering Report 2012)

- Detailed information the potential for

To strengthen the case for the creation of the park, clearly setting out the economic rationale and identifying what the key economic focus of the park will be based on evidence; In response to representations received during consultation.

48

equestrian and cycling participation; - Identification of Key Messages

providing the focus of the Forest Park’s economic activity.

Sub-section 6.2 Key Issue 2: Meeting the Strategic Needs of the Borough and the Sub-Region has been expanded to include:

- Identification of the potential for land within the Forest Park to be required to meet identified needs and set out need to ensure appropriate design;

- Recognise the potential for the Forest Park Area to accommodate an caravan touring site;

- Identification of Key Messages concerning the need for good design and potential for a caravan park.

Sub-section 6.3 Key Issue 3: Meeting the needs of the community has been expanded to identify the benefits the Forest Park can have on community including:

- Deprivation - Increasing employment prospects - Promoting physical health - Anti-social behaviour

.

Sub-section 6.4 - Key Issue 4: Safeguarding

To identify the need for potential land release within the Forest Park and recognise the aspiration to accommodate a caravan touring site in support of the tourist economy; In response to representations received during consultation. To identify the key issues facing the community in the Forest Park and set out how the AAP can positively address these; In response to representations received during consultation. To offer a greater level of information and

49

and Enhancing the Environment has been expanded significantly and has been broken down to specifically address issues concerning Landscape Character, Biodiversity and Heritage with reference to the evidence base. This now includes:

- Additional explanatory text and detail on the Park’s landscape character;

- Additional explanatory text clearly setting out details of Parks’ biodiversity with tables detailing Key Species and Habitats;

- Additional explanatory text clearly setting out details of the parks built heritage and assets with identification of the Listed Assets;

- Identification of Key Messages in relation to enhancing and safeguarding the Forest Park’s environment.

Sub-section 6.5 - Key issue 5: What activities are appropriate to develop within the Forest Park? has been refined give a focus on the key activities with explanatory text on the supporting evidence. Sub-section 6.6 Key issue 6: Developing the Infrastructure has been significantly expanded to offer a more focus and greater level of detail on how Park’s infrastructure needs developed. This now includes detail on:

clearly identify of the Key Issues in response to representations received during consultation. To offer a greater level of information and clearly identify of the Key Issues in response to representations received during consultation. To offer a greater level of information and

50

- Access infrastructure - Family Visitor Facilities - Cycling Network - Equestrian Network - Walking Routes - Multi-functional Routes

Sub-section 6.7 - Key Issue 7: Delivery and Implementation has been expanded to give greater focus and explanation on:

- Site management and maintenance - Warden or Ranger Service - Marketing of the Forest Park

clearly identify of the Key Issues regarding infrastructure delivery and how the AAP seeks to address these in response to representations received during consultation. To offer a greater level of information and clearly identify of the Key Issues the AAP seeks to address regarding delivery and implementation in response to representations received during consultation.

Part 2: Developing the Forest Park

7.0 Vision, Aims and Objectives Vision has been expanded to include recognition of the cultural environment. Supplementary Aim BFP6 has been added in recognition of the Parks potential to improve mental health and well-being.

To recognise the Park’s wider cultural offer. In response to representations received during consultation.

8.0 Strategic Development Policy Policy BFP1: A Sustainable Forest Park – Purpose and Justification for the policy have been set out.

To establish core principles behind the Forest Park Development.

9.0 Developing the Forest Park Policy BFP ECON1 (no change) Policy BFP ECON 2: Addressing Worklessness - Justification has been refined with reference to latest St.Helens Plan.

To ensure most up-to-date and relevant reference has been used in the justification for this policy.

10.0 Delivering the Forest Park Infrastructure Section 10 Delivering the Infrastructure has To offer a greater level of information and

51

been significantly expanded to offer greater detail on the AAP’s proposals in relation to Paragraph 10.1 Current infrastructure and Paragraph 10.2 Proposed Infrastructure. This also now includes maps setting out the Current Forest Park Infrastructure And a Key Diagram showing the proposed Strategic Infrastructure Plan of Bold Forest Park. Policy BFP INF 1: Recreation Hub Development Strategy identifies proposed recreational hub development within the Forest Park and clearly details their focus, typical activities and infrastructure/facilities. Policy BFP INF 2: Sutton Manor Visitor Hub has been introduced to identify the location for the Forest Park Visitor destination and sets out its purpose and justification. This includes an indicative Profile detailing:

- Infrastructure; - Typical Activities; - Indicative profile plan.

Policy BFP INF 3: Clock Face Country Park Recreation Hub / Cycling Centre has been introduced to identify the location for a cycling focused Recreation Hub and sets out its purpose and justification. This includes an indicative Profile detailing:

- Infrastructure; - Typical Activities; - Indicative profile plan.

clearly identify how AAP seeks to address infrastructure delivery in response to representations received during consultation and to reflect views of the Bold Forest Park Implementation Group and specialist studies undertaken by student placements. A stronger vision has been set out for the main infrastructure of Bold Forest Park, particularly in relation to the Recreation Hubs. The indicative profiles will allow greater understanding of how each site will work and how the various networks of routes will link them together. Clock Face Country Park is considered to be the ideal location for a cycling hub and will allow it to be delivered sooner than previous plans.

52

Policy BFP INF4 Colliers Moss Common Recreation Hub Development Opportunity Site has been introduced to identify an “opportunity site” for development which would directly benefit the range and offer of activities in the Forest Park and sets out its purpose and justification. This includes an indicative Profile detailing:

- Infrastructure; - Indicative profile plan.

Policy BFP INF5: Mersey Valley Golf and Country Club Recreation Hub has been introduced to identify the facility as being able to strongly contribute to the development of the Forest Park and sets out its purpose and justification. This includes an indicative Profile detailing:

- Infrastructure; - Indicative profile plan.

INF 6 Creating an Accessible Forest Park has been relabelled (previously Preferred Option Policy BFP INF 3). It has been expanded to include maps showing rail links, strategic walking links and road access routes

It is clear that Colliers Moss Common can accommodate a degree of development which can strongly benefit the Forest Park and also provide some revenue to invest back into the par’s development and management. The owner of the site strongly supports the Forest Park and wishes to develop his site as a Recreation Hub and contribute to the development of the Forest Park. To provide greater clarity on access issues.

11.0 Meeting the Strategic Needs of the Borough

Draft Policy BFP SN 1: Planning Obligations has been renamed BFP SN2. Policy BFP SN1 Meeting the Needs of the

To give greater recognition of the need

53

Borough has been introduced in recognition of the need for residential and employment land. It sets out the considerations for Green Belt release within the Forest Park and justification for the policy.

authority to meet its identified strategic housing and employment land needs and Green Belt land release.

12.0 Safeguarding the Environment Policy BFP ENV1: Enhancing Landscape Character Policy BFP ENV2: Ecological Network Policy BFP ENV3: Heritage has been amended to strengthen and give clarity as to how the Plan will protect and promote the Forest Parks heritage. Key Delivery Items have been expanded to detail measure on how specific heritage assets will be protected or enhanced. Details of a Heritage Trail route have been included on a map. Policy BFP ENV4:Problem Sites – Key delivery item has been amended (now identifying Re-development of derelict builders yard and former scrap yard, east of Hoghton Road, Sutton)

To give greater recognition of the Park’s built heritage and how the APP will ensure it enhancement and conservation in response to representations received during consultation from Historic England (formerly English Heritage). This area of derelict land is adjacent to a key route into Bold Forest Park from St Helens Junction Station. At present Without re-development it will fail to function as a gateway site and be a barrier to sustainable travel to Bold forest Park.

13.0 Meeting the Needs of the Community Policy BFP Com1: Community Network Forum (previously just ‘Community Forum;) – policy title amended to more accurate reference to the network. Policy BFP Com2 : Supporting Community Hubs – reference to old St.Helens Plan has

The concept of a working network is vital to fully engage the community in the development of the Forest Park. To keep evidence base current.

54

been removed. Policy BFP Com 3: Bold Forest Park as a flagship for delivery of community health improvement – additional information on obesity in St.Helens has been included in the policy justification

In response to representations received during consultation from St.Helens Public Health.

Part 3: Implementation

14.0 Partnership No Change

15.0 Development and Management Structures

Section 15.0 Management Structures illustration has been revised to reflect new approach.

Changes reflect realities of staff resources and reflect current working practices.

16.0 Delivery Plan This has been reviewed and revised by the Forest Park Implementation Group

To ensure the Plan reflects current thinking and reflects consultation responses

Part 4 : Allocations New section

16.0 Policy Map New section To provide a spatial dimension to the Forest Park Policies.

55

5. Conclusions The comments received from a wide range of consultees have been fully considered by Council Officers who have taken these into account when preparing the next stage of the Plan. These comments have both positively influenced and shaped the policies presented in the Publication Version of the AAP and informed the supporting Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment. 6. Next Steps The ‘Publication’ version of the Bold Forest Park AAP will be published by the Council who will then formally invite consultees, including members of the public, to make ‘representations’ on the Plan before it is then submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination.

56

Appendices Appendix A. Table of Respondents and View on Preferred Policy Approach Appendix B. Response Form

57

Appendix A –Summary Table of Respondents and View on Preferred Policy Approach

Response Ref.

Respondent Organisation/ Group

Do you agree with the preferred strategic approach and policies as set out in the draft version of the Bold Forest Park AAP? (Agree/Disagree)

BFP 1

BFP Econ 1

BFP Econ 2

BFP INF 1

BFP INF2

BFP INF 3

BFP SN 1

BFP ENV1

BFP ENV2

BFP ENV 3

BFP ENV 4

BFP Com 1

BFP Com 2

BFP Com3

DBFP1 Sue Young N/A

DPFP2 Antony Young Dream Trail Race

DBFP3 Angela Gemmill Marine Management Organisation

DBFP4 Dave Dickinson Highways Agency

DBFP5 Eric Roberts Electricity North West

DBFP6 Karl Briggs N/A Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree

DBFP7 Daniel Itzcovitz Transport for London

DBFP8 Joanna Male Gregory Gray Associates (on behalf of Wyevale Garden Centres)

Agree Agree

DBFP9 Cath Shea Arts Service, St Helens Council

Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree

DBFP10 Rachael A. Bust The Coal Authority Agree

58

DBFP11 Alex Naughton Merseytravel Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree

DPFP12 Andrew Tait Steven Abbott Associates LLP (on behalf of Mr John Cotton)

DBFP13 Peter Nurse St Helens & District Referees' Society


DBFP14 Roger Bush Mersey Valley Golf & Country Club Ltd


DBFP15 Kevin Usher Warrington BC

DBFP16 Emily Hrycan Historic England (formerly English Heritage)

DBFP17 Elliot Kemp Greater London Authority (Mayor of London)

DBFP18 Patrick Fox Heart of Glass Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree

DBFP19 Mike Berry Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside

DBFP20 Kate McClean Taylor Wimpey

DBFP21 Helen Williams Public Health Programmes, St. Helens Council


DBFP22 Kate Wheeler Natural England

DBFP23 Brian Smith N/A

DBFP24 Peter Sandman Liverpool City Region LEP

59

Appendix B - Response Form and Accompanying Guidance Note

60

Draft Bold Forest Park Area Action Plan

Consultation Response Form

November 27th 2014 - 16th January 2015

St.Helens Council and its project partners including The Mersey Forest seek your comments on the draft version of the Bold Forest Park Area Action Plan (AAP). The draft plan presents the preferred strategic approach and policy options for the area’s future development. When finalised, this document will form part of the wider Local Plan for St.Helens. To register your comments, please complete and return this form. For advice on how to do this, please see the accompanying ‘Consultation Response Form Guidance Note’. This form also gives opportunity for you to comment on the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) prepared for the draft AAP. Please ensure the form is returned to us by no later than 5pm on Friday 16th January 2015. Any comments received after this deadline cannot be accepted.

PART ONE – YOUR DETAILS

Your Details

Your Agent Details (if applicable)

Title: Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Dr/Other: Title: Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Dr/Other:

Surname:

Surname:

Forename:

Forename:

Organisation/company: Organisation/company:

Address: Postcode:

Address: Postcode:

Tel No: Tel No:

Fax No: Fax No:

Mobile No: Mobile No:

Email: Email:

Ref: BFPAAP (For official use only)

61

Please be aware that anonymous forms cannot be accepted and that in order for your comments to be considered you MUST include your details above.

Would you like to be kept updated of future stages of the Bold Forest Park Area Action Plan process?

Yes (Via Email) No

Please note, e-mail is the Council’s preferred method of communication. If no e-mail address is provided, we will contact you by your postal address.

PART TWO – YOUR COMMENTS

A. The Draft Bold Forest Park Area Action Plan

A1. Do you agree with the preferred strategic approach and policies as set out in the draft version of the Bold Forest Park AAP?

Preferred Approach / Policy Agree?

BFP 1: Preferred Strategic Approach A Sustainable Forest Park (p.21)

Yes No

Policy BFP Econ 1: Supporting Economic Growth (p.25) Yes No

Policy BFP Econ 2: Addressing Worklessness (p.26) Yes No

Policy BFP INF 1 Preferred Option: Sutton Manor Visitor Hub (p.29)

Yes No

Policy BFP INF2 Preferred Option: Recreation Hub Development Strategy (p.30)

Yes No

Policy BFP INF 3: Creating an Accessible Forest Park (p.31) Yes No

Policy BFP SN 1 Preferred Option: Planning Obligations (p.33) Yes No

Policy BFP ENV1: Enhancing Landscape Character (p.35) Yes No

Policy BFP ENV2: Biodiversity Preferred Option: Ecological Network (p.35)

Yes No

Policy BFP ENV 3: Heritage (p.36) Yes No

Policy BFP ENV 4: Problem Sites (p.36) Yes No

Policy BFP Com 1 Preferred Option: Community Network (p.37) Yes No

Policy BFP Com 2 Preferred Option: Supporting Community Hubs (p.37)

Yes No

Policy BFP Com3 Preferred Option: Establish Bold Forest Park as a flagship resource for Health and Wellbeing (p.38)

Yes No

62

A2. Please provide reasons for your choice including any comments on the policy justification and suggestions how the policy could be improved.

Preferred Approach / Policy Option

Reason

Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary

A3. Do you have any other comments on the content of document such as the maps, tables or background information? Please tell us which part of the document your comments relate to.

Reference (paragraph, figure, page)

Comments


63

B. The Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment Report

B1. Do you have any comments on the content of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) or Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) prepared for the Draft Bold Forest Park AAP? Please tell us which part of the document your comments relate to.

Document (SA or HRA)

Reference (paragraph, figure, table)

Comments


Thank you for your time to complete and return this response form.

Please keep a copy for future reference.

PART THREE – RETURN DETAILS Please return your completed form to us by no later than 5pm on Friday 16th January 2015.

By post to: Freepost RLYY – RYXG – HYHS St.Helens Metropolitan Borough Council Chief Executive’s Department, Development Plans, Town Hall, Victoria Square, St.Helens, WA10 1HP

Or email to: [email protected]

Signature: Date:

mailto:[email protected]

64

Please note we are unable to accept faxed copies of this form, unless previously agreed with the Development Plans Manager. FURTHER INFORMATION If you have any queries or seek further information please contact us:

Telephone: 01744 676190 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.boldforestpark.com/

NEXT STEPS The Council will consider all the comments made throughout the public consultation process and take these into account when progressing the Area Action Plan to its final stages of publication and submission before adoption. A report of the representations received will be produced alongside the next stage of the Plan. DATA PROTECTION STATEMENT Personal information provided on this form (address, contact details, signature) will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. It will be treated as confidential and used only to progress the Bold Forest Park AAP to adoption. However, your name and representation will be made publicly available and cannot be treated as confidential.

Many thanks for taking the time to fill out this form; your co-operation is gratefully received.


http://www.boldforestpark.com/

66

Draft Bold Forest Park Area Action Plan Consultation Response Form Guidance Note

November 2014

This guidance note provides advice on how to fill in and submit the official consultation response form for the draft version of the Bold Forest Park Area Action Plan (AAP).

PART ONE – YOUR DETAILS You are requested to fill out your personal details if your comments are to be registered and considered. If you are/have an agent employed to act on someone else’s/your behalf, please fill out both your own and your client’s/agents details. Any anonymous response forms unfortunately cannot be considered. Your name and comments will be made publicly available and therefore cannot be treated as confidential. If you would like to be kept updated of the next stages of the Bold Forest Park Area Action Plan then please indicate using the tick box. E-mail is the Council’s preferred method of communication but if no e-mail address is provided, we will contact you via your postal address.

PART TWO – YOUR REPRESENTATION

A. The Draft Bold Forest Park Area Action Plan A1. Do you agree with the preferred strategic approach and policies as set out in the draft version of the Bold Forest Park AAP? In order to answer this question, please refer to the Draft Bold Forest Park AAP document. Use this section of the form to indicate whether or not you agree with the preferred strategic approach and policy options by ticking ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in the boxes provided. The preferred approach / policies are listed as they appear in the document with relevant page numbers given. A2. Please provide reasons for your choice including any comments on the policy justification and suggestions how the policy could be improved. Please provide details explaining your choice to help us understand the reasons behind it. This can include comments on the justification text and suggestions on how the policy can be improved for the final version of the plan. Please clearly indicate which preferred approach / policy option your comments relate to in the space provided e.g. ‘BFP 1’, or ‘Policy BFP ENV2’.

67

A3. Do you have any other comments on the content of document such as maps, tables or background information? Please tell us which part of the document your comments relate to. Please provide comments you may have on any other aspects of the Draft AAP’s content such as the background information, tables, maps or figures. This could include details of any factual inaccuracies or additional information you may be aware of. Please clearly indicate which section of the document your comments relate to in the space provided e.g. ‘Para 1.1.2’ or ‘Figure 2’.

B. The Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment Report B1. Do you have any comments on the content of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) or Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) prepared for the Draft Bold Forest Park AAP? Please tell us which part of the document your comments relate to. Please provide any comments you may have on either the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) or Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) that have been prepared for the Draft Bold Forest Park AAP. Please clearly indicate which document and section your comments relate to in the space provided e.g. ‘SA, Figure 3.1’ or ‘ HRA, Table 3.2’.

PART THREE – RETURN DETAILS In order for your comments to be registered and considered, the Council must receive them by no later than 5pm on Friday 16th January 2015. There are two methods to return the form: By post to: Freepost RLYY – RYXG – HYHS

St.Helens Metropolitan Borough Council Chief Executive’s Department Development Plans Town Hall, Victoria Square, St.Helens, WA10 1HP

Or email to: [email protected]

Please note we are unable to accept faxed copies of this form, unless previously agreed with the Development Plans Manager.

FURTHER INFORMATION If you have any queries or seek further information please contact us:

Telephone: 01744 676190 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.boldforestpark.com/

NEXT STEPS The Council will consider all the comments made throughout the public consultation process and take these into account when progressing the Area Action Plan to its final stages of publication and submission before adoption. A report of the representations received will be produced alongside the next stage of the Plan.



http://www.boldforestpark.com/

68

DATA PROTECTION STATEMENT Personal information provided on this form (address, contact details, signature) will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. It will be treated as confidential and used only to progress the Bold Forest Park AAP to adoption. However, your name and representation will be made publicly available and cannot be treated as confidential.

Many thanks for taking the time to fill out this form; your co-operation is gratefully received.

bold forest park - st helens · 1 bold forest park draft area action plan 2014 (preferred options)...

Documents