PLANNING COMMITTEE 17 September 2008 REPORT BY

REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE 17 September 2008

REPORT BY: CHIEF PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION OFFICER

PREPARED BY: C B Clarkson Dip TP MRTPI (01254 388111)

APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 FOR DETERMINATION

Purpose of Report : To present planning applications for determination as set out in the report

1. 11/08/0355 Land south of the former Huncoat Power 2 Station, off Lowergate Road, Huncoat

2. 11/08/0361 197 Manchester Road, Accrington 16

3. 11/08/0403 Victoria Works, John Street, Oswaldtwistle 19

4. 11/08/0418 200 Bold Street, Accrington 23

5. 11/08/0421 5 Higher Gate Road, Huncoat 26

6. 11/08/0428 Mount Carmel High School, Wordsworth Road, 29 Accrington

7. 11/08/0358 Former Cliffe Brickworks, off Cliffe Lane, Great 33 Harwood

8. 11/08/0388 161B Richmond Road, Accrington 39

9. 11/08/0405 Victoria Works, John Street, Oswaldtwistle 42

10. 11/08/0406 6 Edinburgh Drive, Oswaldtwistle 45

11. 11/08/0425 Laneside Garage, Livingstone Road, 47 Accrington

NOTE: The policies referred to under “Relevant Policies” are set out in the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan (reference letters) and the Lancashire Structure Plan (reference numbers). These documents may be inspected at the Council Offices.

THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL (Category A)

11/08/0355 Land south of the former Huncoat Power Station off Lowergate Road Huncoat Accrington Outline application: Employment development B1, B2 and B8 uses (Resubmission 11/07/0350) G N Properties

Site description and locality

The site comprises 8.42 hectares of agricultural land to the south of the former Huncoat Power Station site and near to the junction of Lowergate Road with Altham Lane. The area is currently used for grazing livestock and is nominally divided by partial stone walls and hedgerows running roughly north to south and large electricity pylons which enter the site in the north-east corner and cross it form east to west.

The site is bounded by the former Power Station and Peter Grime Row, a short terrace of houses, to the north, a narrow strip of land adjacent to Lowergate Road to the west and extensive greenbelt areas to the south and east which run away to Burnley Road and the A56 respectively. There are residential properties facing the site on the opposite side of Lowergate Road and also to the south-west on Towneley Avenue. While the majority of the site is allocated in the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan for employment uses a small portion of the site, in the north-eastern corner and required to provide vehicular access to the site, is within the green belt. Although associated with the former Power Station site through a mutual employment land allocation in the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan it should be noted that the land is of a distinctively different character to that of the Power Station site itself and would not be considered to be ‘previously developed’ land.

Details of proposal

The applicant seeks outline planning permission to establish the site as an employment estate, comprising a mix of office, industrial, and distribution uses. The matters for consideration at this stage are the principle of the use of this land for commercial employment uses and the proposed access arrangements up to the site boundary. The other reserved matters - layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are reserved for future approval. An Environmental Statement has been submitted with the application.

The applicant expects that development of this site would create approximately 600 job opportunities within the borough through the provision of a mix of employment uses. The 2 indicative masterplan identifies a total of 23,975m gross floor area across the development but the details of such buildings would necessarily be the subject of a subsequent reserved matters application. Access to the site has been considered across a number of modes; details in the masterplan indicate provision for pedestrian and cycle access as well as the retention of all footpaths which currently cross the site. Vehicular access to the development will be by means of a branch road off the forthcoming link road

2 from A679 Burnley Road which has already been approved as part of the Lancashire County Council Waste Transfer development for the main Power Station site.

Planning history

11/07/0350 Outline Application: Employment development B1 B2 & B8 uses. Refused 17.12.2007 The County Council granted planning permission for the development of a Waste th Management Facility on the site of the former power station (11/05/0535) on the 20 July 2006.

Consultations

Prior to submitting the first application, the applicant staged a local exhibition of the scheme for the general public. The originally refused application drew letters of objection from103 local residents together with a petition containing 645 names.

The council consulted immediate neighbours by letter as well as displaying 5 site notices and publishing a press notice. Statutory consultees were also fully consulted.

44 members of the public responded by letter objecting to the proposed development raising a number of concerns as follows:

• Concern regarding the loss of green space in rural location. . • Too much industrial development in Huncoat particularly in light of the forthcoming Recycling Plant. • Loss of Greenbelt. • Impact of increased traffic. • Loss of trees, hedgerows and other environments including wildlife habitats. • The proposal will affect local rights of way. • Increase in noise and air pollution. • Contradicts local Plan Policies E3, E4, E13, E10 & E 6. • Increased traffic including heavy lorries. • No need for further commercial development in the area, there are existing empty units. • The EIA is flawed. • Negative visual impact on the surrounding area. • Negative impact on the amenity of local residents. • The status of the site should be reconsidered pending the forthcoming Local Development Framework as it has always been used for agricultural purposes and the local plan is out of date. • The same grounds for refusal apply as the changes to the current application are very minor.

The responses of the Council’s Statutory Consultees were as follows:

Lancashire County Council Strategic Planning: The Director of Strategic Planning and Transportation assessed the proposal and raised no objection and reaffirmed comments previously made on application 11/07/0350, noting that the proposal ‘will assist the

3 development of a regeneration priority area’ and concluding that the proposal could be considered to demonstrate very special circumstances for the small infringement on Greenbelt land. The application was considered to conform to policies held within the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan.

Lancashire County Council Archaeology: Archaeological matters were also considered by LCC Strategic who recommended that any finds would be of local or perhaps regional importance and although not requiring preservation in situ would require preservation by means of a record. Consequently they found no grounds for objection but recommended the imposition of a condition to achieve the above.

Lancashire County Council Ecology Unit : LCC’s Ecology Unit assessed the application in relation to PPS9, Policy 21 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan and Policy ER5 of RPG 13, and raised no objections to the proposal but requiring the implementation of a number of conditions relating to the management of environments within the scheme.

Lancashire County Council Highways: The highway authority assessed the scheme and concluded that there were no significant objections to the proposed means of access and accepted that the Transport Assessment was acceptable in terms of methodology and demonstrated that the affected junctions were adequate in terms of capacity.

North West Regional Assembly: The North West Regional Assembly reiterated their concerns raised in the previous consultation regarding the current status of the development plan and the extent to which B1 uses should be included in an out-of-town site. The applicant has responded to these issues in a supplementary planning statement and these matters are dealt with in my observations below. Still remain to be convinced that previous concerns about building on the green belt have been adequately addressed. The reduction in the area to be taken from the green belt is negligible.

Highways Agency : The Agency is satisfied that there would be no unacceptable impacts upon the surrounding transport network and has requested a more robust travel plan in relation to the proposal be approved by the Authority prior to occupation of the site. This will be conditional upon approval.

Environment Agency: The Environment Agency raised no objection in principle to the development but required that a compensatory ditch habitat be provided by the developer as well as a sustainable drainage approach to be demonstrated by any forthcoming reserved matters proposal.

United Utilities: United Utilities raised no objections to the proposal and later supplied a supplementary letter confirming the applicant’s position in relation to the overhead power lines.

Head of Environmental Health: Environmental Health identified that the submitted noise impact assessment was not satisfactory and made unacceptable assumption considering the outline nature of the proposal. Notwithstanding that they chose not to object, noting that nothing within the matters for approval at this stage would preclude the detailing of an acceptable scheme with an improved noise impact assessment at reserved matters stage.

4 Natural England: Natural England raised no objection to the proposed scheme but advised the Council to be mindful of guidance in PPS 9 in relation to the conservation of habitats.

Hyndburn Borough Council – Regeneration: Strongly support the proposals as the development of this allocated employment site is crucial to future job creation in the borough. High quality design will be essential. Areas of Huncoat and Hyndburn generally suffer from worklessness and unemployment and a high proportion of residents do not have access to a car. The site is well located terms of access by other means of transport. There are a number of vacant units available for sale or rent in the borough but there is a real shortage of units in excess of 10,000ft 2. The larger units which are available tend to be older units and former mills near to the town centres which are not conducive to use for modern industry. A number of larger companies have had to move out of the borough in order to expand. It is practically impossible to attract new larger employers to the borough at the present time.

Relevant Policies

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Saved Local Plan Policies S1, E10, I1 and T1.

Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Policy 14 Industrial land provision

Regional Planning Guidance for the North West Policy EC2 – Manufacturing Industry

Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West Policy W1- Strengthening the Regional Economy

Planning Policy Guidance 2 – Greenbelts

Observations

The applicant seeks to establish the principle of employment uses on a site within Huncoat. The proposed development site is a greenfield site characterised by grassland and a number of partial stone walls and hedgerows. It should be noted that, although greenfield, the majority of the development site does not fall within the statutory greenbelt except for a small area to the east required to provide access to the site. Greenbelt is a distinct policy allocation, the implications of which are dealt with later in this report. The majority of the site is land allocated as Site V for employment uses detailed under Policy I1 in the Local Plan.

The proposal infringes on a small area of greenbelt land to connect with the proposed Whinney Hill Link Road to provide access to the allocated employment land. Up until the proposed development of this link road by Lancashire County Council, the site had not come forward for development due to problematic access issues and impact on the existing road network. Policy I1 sites have necessarily been identified to secure ongoing employment and economic development within the Borough. The allocation within the Local Plan is intended to not only give potential developers certainty about where such

5 uses should be acceptable but is also an indication of the Council’s desire to see such land developed for particular uses.

This application deals with a number of key issues but the submission is in outline form with all matters, except access, being reserved for later approval. The issues for consideration at this stage therefore relate solely to the principle of the use of the land, the access arrangements identified by the proposal and the implications thereof. Despite the applicant’s submission of a detailed masterplan for the site, all issues relating to the size, scale, design of buildings, internal circulation etc will be the subject of a reserved matters application and are not to be determined at this stage.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposal does raise a number of issues relating to the proper determination of the application in accordance with policy. Despite work proceeding towards the production of both this Council’s Local Development Framework, which will eventually replace the local plan, and the North West Regional Spatial Strategy, the current policy context by which applications should be determined remains that laid down by the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan and the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan some consideration can be given to emerging policy within the Regional Spatial Strategy which replaces the Regional Planning Guidance 13. This view is supported by Government Office North West’s recent confirmation that Policies S1, E10, I1, and TR1 are ‘saved’ until formally replaced by LDF policies. As such I would advise that those policies set the only acceptable criteria by which this application should be determined and that the Local Plan policies, despite initially being intended to cover a time period from 1996 to 2006, are not considered to be time expired. Equally whilst the forthcoming LDF is at such an embryonic stage, having not been through any public consultation, the proposal cannot be considered premature.

The majority of the proposed development falls within an area allocated in the Proposals Map of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan and Policy I1 of that plan as suitable for employment development. The Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Policy I4 identifies that 70 ha of employment land is to be provided within Hyndburn between 2001-2016 and this site is significant in contributing to that requirement. As such, the expectation should be that subject to design, and the consideration of other policies, as well as any other material considerations, the principle of some form of employment development in this location should be acceptable.

The Council’s Regeneration Department has indicated strong support for the proposals. The comments centre on the importance of the provision of good quality, well designed, employment sites to ensure the economic well-being of the Borough including the creation of jobs and the encouragement of future investment. The response highlights that areas of Huncoat and Hyndburn as a whole suffer from worklessness and unemployment and it is essential that local job opportunities are provided for the population. The UK Statistics Authority ranks Hyndburn 13,328 out of 32,482 in the Indices of Deprivation in 2007, this is further identified by the fact that Hyndburn has 19% of the working age population in receipt of benefits in comparison with the rest of England averaging 14%.

A consultation response has also been forwarded from the Borough’s Economic Development Officer who has outlined that the Borough has a shortage of suitably large (25,000 square feet +) industrial units to offer prospective employers. As a result of this shortage, a number of larger companies have had to leave the borough if they want to

6 expand. This has had a detrimental effect on the ability of the Borough to attract larger employers.

Consequently I consider that any refusal based solely on the principle of employment development could not be justified. Furthermore, and particularly with regard to a number of objections received which raised need for this development as an issue, I believe that such assessments would run contrary to current planning guidance on the allocation of such land. Hyndburn as an authority is required to allocate new employment land for development across the borough regardless of need or existing provision and the state thereof. This situation is likely to continue with the emerging RSS (pp23 Section 8.2) requiring local authorities to ensure:

“…provision of a wide range of sites for a variety of uses which will support the development of a diversified local economy, ensuring that there is access to a range of job opportunities for the local population.”

Concerns raised by the North West Regional Assembly, now known as 4 North West, that the scheme is contrary to the emerging RSS which states,

“Office development should, as far as possible, be focused in the regional centres, regional town and city centres and key service centres in accordance with PPS6, Policy RDF1 and Part 4 of this RSS.”

In light of this concern raised I am recommending a condition be imposed to restrict the amount of Office use on the site (more specifically Use B1a) to no more than 15% of the total developed floor area.

The indicative master plan shows that the developer has a full appreciation of the rural nature of the site’s location and of the need to secure the continuing open character of the surrounding green belt. Although not part of this application, discussions have been ongoing with the developer in relation to the aspirations of the overall appearance of the site. The revision of the application seeks to further minimise the amount of actual development encroaching on the green belt land, the majority of which will be landscaping associated with the access as opposed to actual hardsurfacing. The oval plan of the site includes significant areas of landscaped buffering particularly to the south of the site in order to limit any potential landscape impact. It should also be noted that the accompanying Design and Access Statement shows a subtle colouration of any built structures on the site and this could also be pursued through any subsequent reserved matters proposals. It has also been agreed with the developer that at the reserved matters stage development building will be restricted immediately in front of the properties known as “Peter Grime Row”, this area is to be landscaped, and any development adjacent to the properties on the corner of Towneley Avenue will be restricted in height to minimise the impact on the closest residential properties. This can be secured by condition.

Importantly a number of issues relating to the greenbelt have been raised by the detail of this proposal and particularly by the access arrangements. Vehicular access to the development will be by means of a branch off the forthcoming link road from A679 Burnley Road which was approved as part of the LCC Waste Transfer development on the main Power Station site. That road itself cuts a swathe through the greenbelt but was ultimately was considered acceptable by Lancashire County Council as the development which it

7 enabled was a strategic requirement for Lancashire and because transport studies demonstrated that access from Lowergate Road or Altham Lane would be wholly unacceptable. Thus the County Council accepted that there were very special circumstances for the incursion into the green belt.

The application under consideration today requires a new branch section to serve the site directly from the Waste Transfer site access. Although not wholly within the Greenbelt this access road does require some impingement upon such land. Local Plan Policy S1 and Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG 2) apply. Between them these documents require that for any development to be approved on Green Belt land, must demonstrate very special circumstances exist which necessitate the development and outweigh any harm resulting from the incursion into the Green Belt. Furthermore rather than approving such schemes directly, this committee, if it is minded to approve the proposal, must refer the application to Government Office North West, as a departure from the development plan.

Proposals which affect Green Belt land are inevitably emotive issues, and the importance of such matters has to a greater extent lead to a large degree of public consternation towards this proposal. It should be properly noted that under current planning regulations the weight of public opinion of its self is not a material consideration in the proper determination of planning applications – decisions must be made based on policy and in the light of all matters which can be considered to be material considerations. Consequently it is important for the committee to properly balance the degree to which this scheme impinges upon allocated green belt land and any very special circumstances which can be considered to exist.

In light of this, the developer has submitted a significant argument to identify very special circumstances. Firstly, that the Council has, by allocating the site in accordance with the objectives of the Lancashire Structure Plan, indicated its desire to see this land developed as part of a package of employment sites across the borough which should enable appropriate employment growth within the plan period and the subsequently extended life of the Local Plan Policies. As such the imperative to develop sufficient employment land generates a particularly special circumstance. In this case, in order for the aspirations of the employment land allocation to be realised and to create a projected 600 jobs a modest infringement of the greenbelt must be made to allow safe and suitable access to the site. The fact that such development has not occurred within the initially envisaged plan period only serves to strengthen the argument that it should be developed now. The emerging RSS Policy W1 affirms local policy should give:

“… positive support to the sustainable diversification and development of the rural economy through the growth of existing businesses and the creation of new enterprise.”

The justification for the special circumstances outlined in the application are further highlighted by Lancashire County Council’s earlier Study in connection with the Waste Management Facility and their own Transport Assessment the developer argues that access to the site off Lowergate Road or Altham Lane would be wholly unacceptable on the basis of being detrimental to amenity and highway safety. In addition direct access from the former power station site would be impractical because of the significant change in levels between the two sites. Consequently, access off the new Power Station access the “Whinney Hill Link Road” is the only remaining alternative, this alternative provides the

8 least intrusive means of accessing the site in terms of noise and heavy traffic impact on the residents of the Huncoat area. The developer in considering this has endeavoured to minimise any green belt impact created by the access road but considers that the imperative to develop the land coupled with a lack of alternative viable access routes is satisfactory to demonstrate very special circumstances.

My evaluation of the application would concur with this approach. The previous application (11/07/035) which was refused in December 2007 took 0.35ha of Green Belt land. In the current application this has been reduced to 0.31ha. Both areas are small when considered against the overall application area of 8.42ha (0.3ha equates to an area 60m x 50m). In addition it is important to note that most of the 0.31ha is in fact to be used for embankments and landscaping of the new stretch of road and only 0.08ha would be hard development (surfaced road or footway) – an area the equivalent to 10m x 8m.

I am particularly mindful of Government Office North West’s confirmation that Policy I1 which this site is allocated under is saved - strengthening the policy . The circumstances of Lowergate Road and Altham Lane being unacceptable for access to this site are well established and that the recently drafted Lambert Smith Hampton Employment Land Study, which could have effectively raised concerns over the allocation, has chosen not to do so. Thus I would consider that the Council’s allocation and the subsequent argument that an imperative to develop this site is substantially sound. As such I would advise that considering the limited amount of Green Belt land involved an adequate argument has been put forward to demonstrate very special circumstances.

Objections have been raised with regard to the impact of traffic generation. However, both the highway authority (Lancashire County Council) as well as the Highways Agency have identified that the details submitted adequately demonstrate that the existing road network can cope with the additional traffic movements. In particular, the Highways Agency took considerable time to allow their own agents to thoroughly assess the detail of the proposal and found no cause to object. They have given recommendations for a requirement on the developer to provide a more robust Travel Plan both by individual occupiers as well as a detailed site wide travel plan to be produced within six months of development occupation when more detailed information is available. Consequently, a refusal on the grounds of highway impact could not adequately be supported.

As part of negotiations surrounding the development, a number of issues relating to the promotion of sustainable modes of transport have been identified to comply with Policy TR1 of the Local Plan, in particular by rail, bus, cycle and foot. T o this extent the developer has agreed a Section 106 Agreement to contribute financially towards the provision of the following items:

• upgrade of bus stops on Station Road £40,000, • a deep clean of Huncoat rail station and replacement of signage £35,000 • provision, improvement and maintenance of cycle routes in Huncoat £108,000 • improvements to the towpath along the Leeds/Liverpool Canal £54,000 • the provision of an open space area adjacent to Lowergate Road and immediately adjacent to the development to facilitate pedestrian & cycle access to the site • to provide funding to enable the monitoring of habitats adjacent to and within the scheme £2,850.

9 Since the refusal of the earlier application the applicants have clarified proposals for the area of land between the site and Lowergate Road. Part of the land is within the application site but part is outside the site and owned by the Council. The applicant agrees that it is essential to provide adequate pedestrian and cycle routes across this land in order that those travelling by cycle and bus or on foot could access the employment site directly from the Huncoat area. The applicant has devised a scheme for this area which includes landscaping and the repair of the stone wall fronting Lowergate Road and this scheme will be secured by a Section 106 Agreement.

In terms of the design at this outline stage a number of issues must still be considered unresolved pending a reserved matters application. Although the applicant has provided a comprehensive master plan which reflects his ambition for the site, many of the details contained therein are not subject to the committee’s consideration today. In particular, the siting and design of buildings, as well as the circulation of traffic within the site are not matters seeking approval in this submission. The main issue for consideration in terms of the overall design of the site relates to the treatment of the overhead electricity lines and pylons which cross the site. On this matter Officers initially pressed the developer to pursue a plan to underground the lines. However, the applicant has now clearly demonstrated that under-grounding the lines would in fact have an adverse effect on the amenity of the site caused in particular by the heavier pylons and access platforms which would be required in close proximity to residential properties, as well as an area above the buried lines which would need to be completely sterile (no built development, trees etc). This position has been supported by a specific letter addressing the issue from United Utilities and confirming the magnitude of works required to bury the lines. Consequently I have reluctantly accepted these arguments and unfortunately the overhead lines and pylons will have to remain the eventually the layout of the site designed around them.

Many objections have been raised that the proposal is contrary to Policy E3, E4, E13, E10 & E 6. These claims cannot be substantiated as, firstly in relation to policy E3, there are no trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders within the site or any trees/woodlands, ponds or bogs of noted value within the Environmental Statement or by the Council’s Trees and Woodland Officer or Lancashire County Council’s Ecology Department . Hedgerows are to be maintained as far as possible and any destruction will be subject to mitigation measures for their replacement. Existing dry stone walls on the site are to be retained. Policy E 6 relates to Listed Buildings but there are no listed buildings within the site or immediately adjacent which will be effected by the proposals. Policy E10 works in conjunction with Policy I1 and cannot contradict the original land allocation therefore the proposed use is not contrary to Policy E10. Polices E4 and E13 mentioned are not “saved polices” and cannot be used to inform planning decisions.

The earlier application 11/07/0350 was refused on grounds that the development would impinge on the Green Belt and that inadequate very special circumstances had been put forward to justify departing from Green Belt policy. A second reason for refusal was that the proposals would be detrimental to residential amenity. The applicant has, in my view, addressed these two issues. In particular the amount of Green Belt take has been reduced and the amount of hard development which could be seen as affecting the openness of the Green Belt is not very small. Such a small incursion into the Green Belt must be weighed against the need for employment land and in my view very special circumstances have been demonstrated.

10 The applicant is happy to accept a condition which restricts the amount and size of any development immediately in front of Peter Grime Row and this would help reduce the impact on the residents of those properties. The improvements to the area of land between the site and Lowergate Road will also lessen any impact on residents in that area.

Consequently and in the light of the above arguments I would recommend that the policy basis for recommending this application for approval is sound. Although some effect on the Greenbelt is identified the site’s allocation and the opportunity to deliver a significant portion of the borough allocated employment land and lack of alternative access provide an acceptable basis to consider that very special circumstances exist.

Recommendation

I recommend that the committee delegate powers to the Chief Planning and Transportation Officer to approve the proposal subject to the conditions attached and following the completion of a Section 106 Agreement covering the above matters, following referral to the Government Office North West as a departure from the development plan.

Condition(s) and Reason(s)

1 Before any development is commenced written approval shall be obtained from the local planning authority in respect of the reserved matters, namely, the layout, scale, appearance of the development, access within the site and landscaping of the site. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: The application is submitted in outline only and does not contain complete details of the proposed development and having regard to Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

2 Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of two years beginning on the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matters to be approved.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details and any subsequently approved reserved matters.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to define the permission.

4 The details submitted in pursuance of condition 2 of this consent shall include existing and proposed levels across the site including finished slab levels of all proposed buildings and finished levels of all landscaped areas, roads and footpaths.

11 Reason: No details of these matters have been submitted with the application and bearing in mind the topography of the site and in accordance with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

5 As part of any reserved matters application made in association with this approval an overall Master Plan shall be submitted for the development of the site for the approval of the local planning authority. The Master Plan shall show the proposed layout of the site including internal roads, pedestrian and cycle links, including the retention of existing footpaths, the location of buildings, car parks, motorcycle and bicycle stores, the retention and improvement of existing walls and hedges, the proposed landscaped areas and any other landscape features. The plan shall identify the proposed phasing of the development and the site shall only be developed in accordance with the approved Master Plan unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To assure a holistic approach to the design and realisation of the development site and to demonstrate accordance with the submitted Environmental Statement and Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

6 As part of the required Master Plan a satisfactory programmed landscaping scheme covering the whole of the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local authority to an approved schedule of works submitted with the landscaping proposals. Any tree or shrub planted which dies or is felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed in the first five year period commencing with the date of planting shall be replaced by the applicants or their successors in title.

In particular the scheme shall accord with the general extent of landscaping and mitigation identified in the indicative masterplan submitted with this application and shall specifically identify comprehensive marginal and internal landscaping as well as a substantial belt of mixed indigenous tree and shrub planting at existing ground levels along the southern boundary of the site of not less than 12m in depth and of varieties which should be expected to achieve heights of not less than 12 - 18m by year 15 of the developments life cycle.

In addition landscaping shall identify a comprehensive scheme for the land adjacent to Lowergate Road, hatched yellow on the approved plan, identifying publicly accessible open space, the treatment and repair of the existing wall lined blue on the approved plan and pedestrian accesses from Lowergate Road.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to enhance the visual amenities of the locality, and in order to comply with the submitted Environmental Statement and Policies E10 and S1 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

7 As part of any reserved matters application made in association with the proposals hereby approved a noise impact assessment of the potential impact of the development shall be undertaken by an appropriately qualified person. The assessment shall be submitted to the local planning authority for consideration. If noise attenuation measures are considered by the local planning authority to be necessary the measures shall be installed before the relevant part of the development is first brought into use and the measures shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the occupiers of nearby residential development and to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

8 As part of any reserved matters application made in association with the proposal hereby approved an air quality impact assessment of the potential impact of the development shall be undertaken by an appropriately qualified person. The assessment shall be submitted to the local planning authority for consideration. If mitigation measures are considered by the local planning authority to be necessary the measures shall be installed before the relevant part of the development is first brought into use and the measures shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of occupiers of nearby residential development and to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

9 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 the only vehicular access to the site (other than any emergency access) shall be from "Premier Drive" and there shall be no vehicular access to the site from Lowergate Road or Altham Lane.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the residential amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties and to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

10 No works shall take place on site until the applicant, or their agent or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of site investigation and archaeological work. This shall be carried out in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which shall first have been submitted to, and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure and safeguard the recording and inspection of matters of archaeological importance associated with the site.

11 Any forthcoming reserved matters application made in association with this approval shall be accompanied by an appropriately robust Travel Plan, with verifiable aims and outcomes, demonstrating how the existing accessibility of the site can be fully utilised and improved through increased services, publicity, ticketing incentives and other appropriate measures. Furthermore the plan shall instigate a clear system of ongoing monitoring and evaluation which can assess the value of the plan over time.

Reason: To ensure acceptable travel patterns to and from the development and to promote the ongoing sustainability of the development.

12 Any forthcoming reserved matters application made in association with this approval shall include full details of specific provision for bats and should identify the installation of bat boxes in the building design as per paragraph 8.6.7 of the Environmental Statement submitted with this application.

Reason: To promote biodiversity within the site and to secure the ongoing provision of a range of habitats particularly for protected species.

13 13 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme to mitigate for the loss of the ditch habitat to the eastern edge of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans in accordance with a scheme of phasing submitted as part of the Master Plan.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not unacceptably reduce the habitat value of the site.

14 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation, of a surface water regulation system has been approved by the local planning authority. The scheme shall demonstrate a comprehensive SUDS approach including full consideration of methods to limit hard surfacing, using permeable surfaces, and green roofs. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the scheme of phasing set out in the approved Master Plan.

Reason: To reduce the increased risk of flooding.

15 Any forthcoming reserved matters application made in association with this approval, and including the preparation of the Master Plan, shall give full consideration to the provision of public art within the scheme.

Reason: To support and enhance the cultural amenities of the Borough and to accord with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

16 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved the developer shall submit an Energy Strategy for the site for the approval of the local planning authority. The strategy shall demonstrate how at least 10% of the predicted energy requirements of the development will be provided by on-site renewable energy sources. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Energy Strategy.

Reason: In order to ensure that a proportion of the energy needs of the development is provided by on-site renewables in order to comply with government policy on renewable energy.

17 The working hours during the construction period of the development shall be confined to the period from 07.30 hours to 18.00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 hours to 13.00 hours on Saturdays only. No construction work shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent properties.

18 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority not more than 25% of the total developable plot area of the site shall be used for developments within Class B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Not more than 15% of the total developable plot area of the site shall be used for developments within Class B1(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

Reason: In order to ensure that the development of this site provides an appropriate number of employment opportunities in order to ensure the most effective use of allocated

14 employment sites and to comply with Policy I1 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. In order to ensure an appropriate level of B1(a) uses on the site in line with the general sequential approach to the provision sites for B1 uses

19 No sizeable steep sided excavations shall be undertaken on site without proper consideration for the provision of acceptable escape routes for animals which may become trapped. All such excavations shall be undertaken in accordance with paragraph 8.6.8 of the Environmental Statement submitted with this application.

Furthermore no operational development, removal of vegetation or other such works which could potentially impact upon birds shall be undertaken on site between February 29th and September 30th in any year without the submission of a breeding bird survey undertaken by a suitably experienced ecologist immediately prior to the commencement of any such works and subsequent written approval from the local planning authority.

Reason: To secure acceptable working conditions and practices on site with particular regard to the safety and proper treatment of protected animals.

20 As part of any reserved matters application made in association with this approval the applicant shall clearly demonstrate that any resultant visual impacts caused by the proposed height, design and colouration of buildings and structures proposed shall be adequately mitigated by appropriately sized, located and maintained landscaping as set out in the Environmental Statement submitted with this application.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in order to achieve the landscape mitigation measures as set out in the Environmental Statement

21 No buildings, structures, plant, machinery, car parking or loading areas shall be located in the area of land hatched in green on the approved Masterplan immediately in front of the properties known as Peter Grime Row. No buildings, structures, plant or machinery in excess of 9m high shall be erected within the area hatched blue on the approved plan.

Reason: In order to preserve the residential and visual amenities of the neighbouring residential properties and to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

Informative Note(s)

1 This planning permission is granted in strict accordance with the approved plans. It should be noted however that:

(a) Any variation from the approved plans following commencement of the development, irrespective of the degree of variation, will constitute unauthorised development and may be liable to enforcement action. (b) You or your agent or any other person responsible for implementing this permission should inform Development Control immediately of any proposed variation from the approved plans and ask to be advised as to the best method to resolve the matter. Most proposals for variation to the approved plans will require the submission of a new planning application.

2 This consent is granted subject to conditions and it is the owner and the person responsible for the implementation of the development who will be fully responsible for their compliance throughout the development and beyond.

If there is a condition that requires work to be carried out or details to be approved prior to the commencement of the development this is called a "condition precedent". The following should be noted with regards to conditions precedent:

(a) If a condition precedent is not complied with, the whole of the development will be unauthorised and you may be liable to enforcement action. (b) In addition if a condition precedent is breached, the development is unauthorised and the only way to rectify the development is the submission of a new application. If any other type of condition is breached then you will be liable to a breach of condition notice.

3 REASONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION : The proposal does not conflict significantly with the provisions of the development plan and in particular is satisfactory in terms of Policy I1, I2,TR1 and E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. Although the proposal results in some inappropriate development within the Green Belt the applicant has clearly demonstrated that very special circumstances exist sufficient to set aside the Green Belt Policy. Consequently the proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of Policy S1. The Mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement are satisfactory and there are no other material considerations which weigh sufficiently against the proposal.

______

11/08/0361 197 Manchester Road Accrington BB5 2PF Retrospective Application: Erection of utility room and conservatory to rear Mr Syed K Uddin

Site description and locality

This two storey house fronts on to the eastern side of Manchester Road, Accrington and just to the south of its junction with Airey Street in a wholly residential area of the borough. While fronting on to Manchester Road, where there is a small front garden, the property also has a frontage to Airey Street although at the actual junction of the two streets there is another, smaller dwelling. There is some considerable change in level from the higher frontage of the property down to the rear garden area which slopes down to the rear of two other properties which front on to Oakwood Road.

Description of development

Both the conservatory and the utility room extension have been completed and this application has been submitted in order to try to regularise the development following an enforcement complaint.

16 The conservatory measures about 4m x 6m and is located at the side of the property facing on to Airey Street and is set back from Airey Street by about 1.5m. The utility room measures about 4.3m x 2.1m. Both extensions are constructed of brickwork to match and the utility room has roof tiles to match the existing house.

Planning history

11/81/0153 Erection of hall and kitchen extension. Approved conditionally 29/4/81.

Consultations

Head of Environmental Health: Any comments will be reported at the Committee meeting.

Local residents have been advised by letter of the application and I have received one letter objecting to the development citing the following reason: • As a matter of principle I strongly object to the erection of the conservatory without consulting either the planning department or neighbours. • The large white conservatory is incongruous in the area.

Relevant policies

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Policy E10 Scale, density, design.

Observations

The issues to be considered in this case are the impact of the development on the amenity of neighbouring residents, the appearance of the extensions and their impact on the character and appearance of the area.

The utility room extension has no significant impact on neighbouring properties and is of a suitable design with matching facing and roofing materials. I consider that the utility room extension is satisfactory.

There is an unusual relationship between the application property and the adjacent house, No 195 Manchester Road in that the application property abuts No 195 at the side but also wraps around the rear of that house. The conservatory is located immediately at the rear of No 195 and is within 0.3m of the common boundary, albeit at a lower level than the main house. The conservatory is therefore very close to the boundary with No 195 although the elevation facing No 195 has been fitted with solid panels and non-opening windows. Because of the difference in levels there is no real overlooking of No 195 from the application site and any overlooking will be in the opposite direction.

A lower ground floor window and door at No 195 faces the conservatory but these relate to a garage. Two ground floor windows in No 195 face the conservatory but are at such a height that there is unlikely to be any loss of sunlight or daylight. No objections have been received from the occupier of No 195.

Although the letter of objection has been received from the property located on the opposite side of Airey Street I do not consider that the extensions would have any

17 significant impact on the amenities of the occupiers of that property or on those of other nearby residents, including those on Oakwood Road.

There is no fixed building line to Airey Street. The side elevation of No 195 Manchester Road is located on the back of pavement line of Airey Street and, while the conservatory does project towards Airey Street and is readily visible when approaching from the east, it does not dominate the street scene. I consider that the conservatory does not cause any significant harm to the character or general amenity of the area.

Overall I consider that the development is acceptable but a condition will be required to ensure that the elevation of the conservatory facing No 195 Manchester Road remains fitted with solid panels and non-opening lights.

Recommendation

Approve subject to the following conditions:

Condition(s) and Reason(s)

1 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to define the permission.

2 All window openings in the western elevation of the conservatory hereby approved shall be fitted with solid panels and shall be non-opening, and both shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the occupiers of adjacent property and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

Informative Note(s)

1 REASONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION : The proposal does not conflict significantly with the provisions of the development plan and in particular is satisfactory in terms of Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. There are no other material considerations which weigh sufficiently against the proposal.

2 This planning permission is granted in strict accordance with the approved plans. It should be noted however that:

3 This consent is granted subject to conditions and it is the owner and the person responsible for the implementation of the development who will be fully responsible for their compliance throughout the development and beyond.

4 The enclosed approval is issued under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. You may also require Building Regulation approval which is dealt with by this Department's Building Control Section (Tel: 380194). You must ensure that all necessary permissions are obtained before starting work, otherwise abortive expense may be incurred.

11/08/0403 Victoria Works John Street Oswaldtwistle Use of land for siting of 22 No. metal shipping containers for the storage of stock and erection of fencing to storage enclosure for metal trolleys and other equipment and enclosure of existing canopy area to the loading bays Flair Flooring Supplies Ltd

An application relating to the change of working hours at these premises is also on this agenda for decision.

Site description and locality

The application premises are an industrial building situated on the south side of Victoria Street, Oswaldtwistle with accesses both from John Street and Commercial Street. The site is bounded to the north, west and north-east by terraced housing, to the south-west by a builders’ yard and to the south by Tinker Brook with housing beyond. The site is a former cotton mill which was for many years used by John Wood Steel Drums and, more recently, by Vernon Steels. The current use of the site is for warehousing. The site comprises a number of original Victorian Stone buildings and more modern steel clad extensions.

Details of proposal

Use of land for the siting of 22 no. metal shipping containers for the storage of stock and erection of 2.4 metres high chain link fencing to form storage enclosure for metal trolleys and other equipment and enclosure of existing loading bay canopy in blue profile steel cladding to match the existing building.

19 The containers are to be located at the south-western end of the site near to the Commercial Street frontage while the smaller enclosed storage area is adjacent to the John Street frontage. The canopy is also at the John Street end of the site.

Planning history

11/08/0405 - Application for variation of condition No. 6 of 11/04/0326 to allow working hours 6.00am - 10.00pm Monday to Friday and 7.00am - 6.00pm Saturday, Sundays and Bank Holidays for a period of 10 weekends per year only – current application 11/05/0741 Formation of window openings on gable end at first floor – approved conditionally 8.12.05 11/05/0404 Erection of fencing – approved conditionally 3.11.05 11/05/0314 Partial demolition of disused factory unit, erection of portal frame warehouse – approved conditionally 30.6.05 11/04/0326 – Retrospective application for change of use from industrial (B2) to warehousing (B8), erection of warehouse extension and canopy over loading bay and retention of palisade fencing and CCTV poles - approved conditionally 25.6.04 11/00/0345 – Erection of building to house diesel tank – approved conditionally 8.9.00 11/99/0474 – Erection of warehouse extension – approved conditionally 19.1.00 11/89/0071 – Erection of chimney stack – approved conditionally 5.4.89 11/84/0564 – Erection of covered loading bay and bin storage area – approved conditionally 29.1.8484

Consultations

Lancashire County Council (Highways) – No objections Head of Environmental Health – Recommends refusal on grounds of disturbance and loss of amenity due to noise.

Site Notice displayed and Neighbours notified – 1 letter received objecting and making the following comments: • This is another reason why Flair Flooring (the applicant) should be on an industrial site, it says on the application that residents were consulted before the application was submitted but the first anyone knew about this was when the application came through the letter box. • Our house is next door to Flair Flooring it is noisy now; a plastic curtain which they have now does not keep noise down. If you have not already decided that this application will be passed, I hope your will take residents into consideration, after al this is a residential area.

Relevant policy

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan “Saved” Policies Policy I 2 Redevelopment of industrial premises Policy E10 Scale, density, design

Observations

Members will see elsewhere on this agenda an application (Application No. 11/08/0405) to vary a condition attached to a previous planning application for a change of use to

20 warehouse (Application No. 11/04/0326) which limits the working hours at the premises to the hours of 07.00 hours and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and 08.00 hours to 13.00 hours on Saturdays only with no work at the premises on Sundays or Public Holidays. This condition was imposed in order to protect the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent properties which adjoin the site.

This current application seeks planning permission for the storage of 22 metal containers in the south-western of the site. These containers are already on site and in use to provide additional storage for carpets and rugs. Planning permission is also sought for the erection of a compound at the eastern end of the site for the storage of metal trolleys. This latter element is in response to complaints from neighbours living adjacent to the site on John Street who were concerned about goods and equipment being stored adjacent to their dwellings. The applicant also intends to encase the existing canopy over the loading bay, at the John Street end of the site, in order to reduce the impact on neighbours in terms of noise and disturbance.

“Saved” Policy I2 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan allows improvements to existing industrial premises providing that they do not adversely affect adjacent residential areas. The containers are screened from the adjacent residential properties by a leylandii hedge and, as the containers have been on site for some time and I have received no objections to their use I consider that their siting is acceptable and has little impact on neighbours. Similarly the creation of the compound to store the trolleys is an acceptable solution to an existing problem.

Concerns have been expressed by a neighbour relating to the noise currently generated from the site. The Head of Environmental Health has also recommended that the application be refused on grounds that there is likely to be disturbance and loss of amenity due to noise from proposed early morning working including deliveries to the site. However the current application does not involve any change to working hours. This is proposed by application 11/08/0405 which is elsewhere on the agenda and is recommended for refusal. The current application simply deals with storage containers, trolley enclosure and alterations to the loading bay. The loading bay is situated approximately 16 metres away from the nearest dwellings on John Street and if the existing operating hours are maintained then encasing the walls of the loading bay canopy can only result in an improvement although the Head of Environmental Health has indicated that noise “leakage” will still occur due to the need to provide openings with upvc curtains.

In the light of the above I do not consider that there are sufficient grounds to refuse this application and therefore recommend that the application is approved.

Recommendation:

Approve subject to the following conditions:

Condition(s) and Reason(s)

1 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details.

21 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to define the permission.

2 The facing materials to be used in the enclosure of the existing canopy hereby approved shall match in colour and texture those used on the existing building.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials, in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan

3 No construction work, construction traffic or operation of any plant/machinery shall take place on the site during the course of the implementation of the development hereby approved except between the hours of 0700 hours and 1700 hours Monday to Saturday. No construction work, construction traffic or operation of any plant/machinery shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the occupiers of the adjacent properties.

4 No goods/materials shall be stored on the site other than in the building(s) and storage containers and compound shown on the approved plan

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the site in the interests of local visual amenity and to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

Informative Note(s)

1 REASONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION : The proposal does not conflict significantly with the provisions of the development plan and in particular is satisfactory in terms of Policies I2 and E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. There are no other material considerations which weigh sufficiently against the proposal.

2 This planning permission is granted in strict accordance with the approved plans. It should be noted however that:

22 If there is a condition that requires work to be carried out or details to be approved prior to the commencement of the development this is called a "condition precedent". The following should be noted with regards to conditions precedent:

______

11/08/0418 200 Bold Street Accrington BB5 6SS Removal of porch and erection of conservatory to rear Mr Stephen O'Shaughnessy

Site description and locality

The application relates to an end-terraced property on the southern side of Bold Street. This terrace of five houses is slightly newer than the traditional stone terraces in the general area and has small rear gardens. The area is wholly residential in character made up of predominantly terraced properties with some semi-detached properties to the east of the area.

Details of proposal

The application seeks to erect a conservatory at the rear of the property. A small rear porch will be removed. The conservatory will project 4 metres from the rear wall and extend 3.3 metres across the rear elevation of the house which is about 5m wide. It will be constructed in materials which will match the existing building.

Planning history

11/04/0704 Erection of conservatory at the rear. Approved Conditionally 21.12.2004. Not implemented.

Consultations

Head of Environmental Health: Gas membrane required. Neighbour Consultations: 1 Letter of objection received making the following comments:

23 • The proposed conservatory would entail a 6 foot high brick wall running 4 metres almost the full length of my garden. • The wall would run just inches from my kitchen window. • We already have an extension on the other side and this additional one will have a devastating effect on our property, the natural light and the enjoyment I am entitled to as described on the deeds of my house.

Relevant policy

Hyndburn Borough Council Local Plan Policy E10 – Scale, density, design.

Observations

An earlier planning permission (11/04/0704) for the erection of a conservatory adjacent to the small rear porch at the premises has not been implemented. That permission proposed a conservatory about 1.2m away from the common boundary with the objector.

The proposed conservatory would be erected on the common boundary with the objector but complies with the Council’s Draft Householder Design Guide as far as it extends no more than 4 metres from the main rear wall of the existing house. In fact, as the adjoining property itself has a small rear extension which protrudes 1 metre from their rear wall, the conservatory will project only another 3m. The conservatory will have a solid brick elevation, with high level windows fitted with obscure glass, on the boundary with the objector’s property in accordance the Council’s normal requirements.

The conservatory will measure about 2.17 metres to the eaves which is only marginally higher than the 2m fence which could be erected without the benefit of planning permission. The back gardens of the properties face south-east and, as the conservatory is located to the west of the objector’s house there would be some loss of afternoon sun to the objector’s rear garden. The objectors claim to a right to light, is a matter of property law, rather than planning law.

The properties both have rear gardens measuring 13 metres therefore a 4 metre extension will still leave a 9 metre rear garden. The proposed conservatory is not materially different from conservatories approved elsewhere in the borough. I do not believe the conservatory will have such a negative impact on the objector’s property as to warrant a refusal on these grounds. I therefore recommend the application for approval.

Recommendation

Approve subject to the following conditions:

Condition(s) and Reason(s)

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

24 Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to define the permission.

3 The facing materials to be used in the construction of the conservatory hereby approved shall match in colour and texture those used on the existing building.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials, in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan

4 The proposed development is near to a former landfill site. Therefore a ground slab and gas proof membrane of minimum 1200g thickness shall be incorporated into the foundations in order to provide adequate protection against the ingress of landfill gas. The membrane shall be: i. laid carefully so as to avoid tears or perforations ii. well-lapped and taped at the joints and iii. continuous across the whole area of the new development

Reason: In the interests of safety having regard to the proximity of the site to a former landfill site and in order to comply with Policies E2 and E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

Informative Note(s)

2 This planning permission is granted in strict accordance with the approved plans. It should be noted however that:

______

11/08/0421 5 Higher Gate Road Huncoat Accrington Erection of single storey extension to side (Resubmission 11/08/0252) Mr Michael Walker

Site description and locality

The application site is a typical 1930’s semi-detached property located on the western side of Higher Gate Road, Huncoat. The area is predominantly residential character with the majority of houses being semi-detached. The Griffin Head public house is located on the opposite, eastern side of the road

Details of proposal

The applicant seeks to extend the property at the side across the driveway to provide a single storey garage and utility room. The extension stretches the full length of the side elevation and measures 3.3m in width. The extension will measure 2.5m high to eaves and 4m to the ridge of the hip.

Planning history

11/08/0252 Erection of two-storey side extension. Refused 11.06.2008

Consultations

Lancashire County Council (Highways): No objections Lancashire County Council: (Archaeology): No objections

26 Neighbouring occupiers have been notified and I have received 2 letters objecting to the proposals and raising the following issues.

• The proposal will infringe daylight, particularly in the mornings. • The extension will be unsightly with no windows only 1 metre from my fence. • The higher floor slab level and the rear door will cause overlooking. • The property is being developed to be sold on for profit. • A mains sewer runs between the properties. • The extension is too close. • Proposal represents an infringement on the original space and design of the properties leading to a boxing in.

Relevant policy

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Policy E10 Scale, density, design.

Observations

The application is a re-submission of previous application for a two-storey side extension. The previous application was refused as it would have represented an un-neighbourly and overbearing form of development being less than the normally required 15m from the adjacent neighbouring property.

The current application is a significantly scaled down version of the previous application, being only single storey and addressing the concerns in relation to the overbearing nature of the development at this location.

The proposed extension replaces a previous detached garage which was demolished some years ago. The proposed extension will reach a maximum height of 4.2 metres at the rear with the different ground floor slab levels. The bulk of the development has been reduced by introducing a hipped roof sloping away from the neighbour’s boundary. The front elevation has been setback by 0.15 mm to prevent an unsatisfactory join between the new and old facing materials.

The applicant’s intention for tenure of the property is not a planning concern and can have no bearing on any decision made.

I do not feel the proposal represents an unacceptable divergence from the original layout or design of the properties as there already has been a garage in this location in the past and the Council has approved single storey side extensions of this type on properties in the past. If the application had windows on the elevation facing the objector’s property it would create overlooking issues and with the same token I do not feel the door to the utility room will cause any undue privacy issues for the objector’s property as it does not face the common boundary.

The applicant has addressed the original concerns raised by Officers and submitted an application which I recommend for approval.

27 Recommendation

Approve subject to the following conditions:

Condition(s) and Reason(s)

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to define the permission.

3 The facing and roofing materials to be used in the construction of the extension hereby approved shall match in colour and texture those used on the existing building.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials, in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan

4 The garage hereby approved shall be used solely for the purpose of housing a private motor vehicle or other uses incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling and no trade or business shall be carried out in or from the building.

Reason: To ensure that an isolated commercial activity is not established on the site at variance with established planning principles, and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

Informative Note(s)

2 This planning permission is granted in strict accordance with the approved plans. It should be noted however that:

28 proposals for variation to the approved plans will require the submission of a new planning application.

______

11/08/0428 Mount Carmel High School Wordsworth Road Accrington BB5 0LU Erection of security fencing around playing field Governors of Mount Carmel High School

Site description and locality

Mount Carmel RC High School is located on the western side of Wordsworth Road, Accrington. The school playing fields are located to the south of the school and are bounded to the east and west by residential properties and to the south by a public footpath with further playing fields and Fern Gore Avenue beyond. The land is allocated as Open Space in the Proposals Map of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

Details of proposal

Erection of 2.4 metre high mesh boundary fence along the boundary of the playing field with a vehicular access gate in the north-eastern corner and a pedestrian access gate on the southern site boundary. The posts and the fencing are to be polyester coated in green.

Planning history

11/05/0621 Erection of lift shaft and link corridor to provide disabled access – approved conditionally 14.10.05

29 11/03/0694 Erection of single storey extension to form mini-bus shelter – approved conditionally 12.1.04 11/03/0452 Erection of single storey laboratory extension – approved conditionally 10.9.03 11/99/0522 Erection of 2.4 metre high security fencing – approved conditionally 31.3.00 11/96/0404 Erection of garage for mini-bus – approved conditionally 14.10.96 11/89/0768 Erection of sports hall, craft block, library and laboratory block, formation of car park – approved conditionally 15.3.90 11/83/0580 Erection of two temporary classrooms – approved conditionally 8.12.83

Consultations

Site notice and neighbours notified – 3 letters received making the following comments: • We have been after this ground being fenced off for some time but the type of fence that we wanted was only low level so as not to spoil the view from our homes onto the playing fields. • We don’t want a large metal fence blocking our views, the type of fence we asked for was the same type as the one erected outside the Sure Start building with a concrete up-right and low level post running horizontal through it, could you please confirm the type of fence that is being applied for in the planning permission. • What I am concerned about is the height and type of fencing they are planning to use. Surely a design a little easier on the eye could be used. For example the type already erected at the front of the school or the type being in use at present on the bus lay-by, this is far less noticeable. • It is the residents that will have to look out from the front of their property at a high and ugly fencing just a few feet from our front doors. Surely something less obtrusive could be found, therefore keeping everyone happy. • I am writing to make an objection to the type of fencing being used directly in front of the house. This is a residential area and this fencing is more in keeping with industrial estate. Could the governors of the school not find an alternative fencing that is not so heavy looking or so height, as we the residents have to look at this daily from our homes? • Lower down the road the fencing at the front of the school is not as heavy or solid looking, maybe this style could be considered as an alternative option. • Also may I add that the local children including my own and parents play on the field as it is a safer option to playing on the roads.

Relevant policy

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan “Saved” Policies Policy L2 Protections of playing fields and open space Policy E10 Scale, density design

Observations

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a 2.4 metres high mesh fence around an existing open playing field on the south side of Mount Carmel RC High School. As the playing field is currently unfenced the school are experiencing problems due to unauthorised use and vandalism to the field in the form of dog faeces, needles, broken glass and pot holes, caused by horses and the use of quad bikes. There has also been an incidence of forks being buried in the ground (points up).

In March 2000 this authority was consulted by Lancashire County Council (LCC) on an application for the erection of a palisade fence around the adjacent school buildings with a paladin fence to the front of the school facing onto Wordsworth Road. This Committee objected to the palisade fencing on the grounds that it would have an overbearing impact on adjacent dwellings. Nevertheless the application was subsequently approved by LCC.

This current application originally sought planning permission for a similar 2.4 metre high palisade fence. The choice of palisade fencing is, in my view, totally inappropriate, overbearing and fortress-like considering it is to be located in such close proximity to the rear aspect of residential properties on Slaidburn Drive and in front of the dwellings on Wordsworth Road. Neighbours have justifiably objected to the proposed palisade fencing. In view of these concerns the applicant was asked to consider an alternative, less visually intrusive, type of fencing and they have now amended the scheme to provide a 2.4 metre high mesh fence which will be polyester coated in green.

As this land is allocated as Open Space in the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan then “saved” Policy L2 is relevant. This policy seeks to protect existing open space from development. In this case the fencing in of the playing fields will result in the loss of use to the general public but would still be “open space” in terms of the visual amenity that it provides.

I now consider that the amended scheme is acceptable.

Recommendation

Approve subject to the following conditions:

Condition(s) and Reason(s)

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to define the permission.

3 The fencing hereby approved shall be coloured in a factory applied finish, in a colour which has first been approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be installed in accordance with the approved scheme to the satisfaction of the local planning authority and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan .

4 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the amended plan no. N/1943/03A and details received on 3 September 2008.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, since the originally submitted plan was subsequently amended

Informative Note(s)

1 REASONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION : The proposal does not conflict significantly with the provisions of the development plan and in particular is satisfactory in terms of Policies L2 and E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. There are no other material considerations which weigh sufficiently against the proposal.

2 This planning permission is granted in strict accordance with the approved plans. It should be noted however that:

______

32 THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL (Category A)

11/08/0358 Former Cliffe Brickworks off Cliffe Lane Great Harwood Erection of replacement single storey Aviary/Bird Hospital (131m2) Mr Peter Wall

Site description and locality

This application relates to a site of approximately 0.7ha located on the north side of Blackburn Old Road, at the junction with Cliffe Lane, Dean Lane and Tan House Lane. There are a number of buildings, enclosures and a vehicle body on wheels, in the south- western corner of the site, some of which are in use, and some are derelict. All these structures are surrounded by considerable undergrowth and bushes. The south-eastern part of the site has recently been cleared, a portakabin and container sited and a gravelled surfacing laid out, without planning permission. There is a stone wall along the road frontage, and two accesses to the site, at the south-western and south-eastern corners of the site, although the former does not appear to have been used for some time.

There is open land to the north and east of the application site, and land to the west has been used for many years for caravan storage. Great Harwood Cricket Club’s ground lies to the south, and to the south-east there are residential properties in Cliffe Lane. The application site and the surrounding land to the north, east and west are within the green belt as shown in the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

Details of proposal

The application seeks permission for the removal of some of the buildings, vehicle body and structures, and the erection of a building to be used as an aviary/bird hospital. The building would measure about 18.7m x 7.7m (maximum width) and 4.3m to the ridge. The walls will be of timber and render construction with a blue slate roof. The two existing vehicular access will be retained with a small car park being formed.

Planning history

11/78/0463 Alteration of gateway for vehicular access and preparation of land to store scout bus. Approved conditionally 2.11.1978. 11/75/0192 Tipping to fill in hole with hard core and earth. Approved conditionally 26.6.1975.

There is no planning history to indicate any lawful use as an aviary. The applicant made enquiries in both February 2006 and again in March 2007 about developing this site. The 2006 enquiry was to replace the existing buildings and structures on the site with a storage building for an electrical business. The applicant was advised that such a proposal would be contrary to green belt policy. The second enquiry again related to the erection of a storage building for an electrical business but also included the present proposals for the replacement aviary building and full plans for both buildings were submitted for comment. Again the applicant was advised of green belt policy.

Consultations

Lancashire County Council (Highways): No objections in principle, but the access onto Dean Lane has virtually zero visibility along Dean Lane, and requires improvements to provide an adequate visibility splay. Lancashire County Council (Archaeology): No comments. Police: No response received. Head of Environmental Health: Informative note regarding potential contamination.

Neighbouring properties notified/site notice displayed: One letter of objection has been received from a neighbouring resident, raising the following points: • The site is in the Green Belt, and they are concerned about any diminution of such an area. Although the site has at one time been used commercially, this use terminated many years ago, and to the casual observer the area would not now constitute part of such a commercial undertaking. There are no other properties on the northwest side of Blackburn Old Road for over 500 yards, and any building of this type at this location would presumably constitute ribbon development. • The stated purpose of the application appears to be on a grand scale compared with the use of the land and the type of facilities currently available. It is difficult to understand why such a large building is required, compared with the current structures, for what is presumably a hobby. Whilst improved facilities for the housing of birds are to be commended, they feel that the proposals are over-ambitious. It is not clear whether the hospital/aviary facilities for birds would be available to the general public; if so, it would bring a significant increase in traffic to what is already a busy bend and junction, and would constitute a business. • During the last 2 years, the applicant has cleared much of the application site, improved the boundary wall and constructed a new access. A temporary ‘crush and run’ type surface has been laid, which they estimate could easily accommodate up to 8 vehicles. Recently, a container and a portakabin have been erected on the site, and even if the buildings are temporary, planning permission has not been sought. • There has been a significant increase in activity at the site involving at times as many as 3 vans owned by the applicant and/or his electrical company. It appears that the container is now being used for storage purposes, believed to be of electrical equipment, and on a number of times waste material has been left burning on the site, sometimes without supervision. It appears that part of this land is being used for commercial purposes, without planning permission. These measures have already changed the character of the area, which has hitherto been purely residential, recreational and agricultural. The nearest commercial premises/industrial unit is over half a mile away in the Britannia Street area close to the town centre. • The proposed size and type of building, together with the available space for parking, could easily be used as an industrial unit for storage in addition to its proposed purpose. This would lead to constant coming and going by business vehicles and the possibility of overnight parking of larger vehicles. • They are concerned that this application may be the forerunner to a further application for a change of use to commercial purposes for the housing and treatment of birds, or to use the premises for the electrical trade. There is also the possibility that the applicant may seek approval to convert the premises to a dwelling if the current application is approved. These uses would presumably not be currently acceptable in the Green Belt, but could be a method utilised to circumvent planning legislation.

34 • They have insufficient knowledge of the welfare requirements and suitability of the premises for the housing of birds, but trust that the relevant authorities will be consulted regarding these measures. • In their opinion, this development would not provide or contribute anything of a beneficial environmental nature to enhance this Greenfield site, but rather would have a detrimental effect.

Relevant policies

Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Policy 6 Green Belts Policy 20 Lancashire’s Landscapes SPG Landscape and Heritage

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Policy S1 Green Belt Policy E10 Scale, density, design

Applicant’s comments

In support of his application, the applicant has provided the following information: • The proposed building would be used specifically for the hospitalisation of injured and disabled birds of prey or as part of a captive breeding programme in conjunction with DEFRA. The new building would replace the existing cluster of buildings on the site used for this purpose. • The applicant has carried out this operation on a voluntary basis at this location for over 25 years. Injured birds of prey are cared for under licence by veterinary surgeons who specialise in this type of work. DEFRA carry out an inspection of the facilities annually. The applicant would visit the site for 2 hours per day, with no staff employed at the site. • The overall footprint of the cluster of buildings has been reduced and condensed into one building which would have less impact upon the openness of the area. The proposed building of 131m² would replace the existing cluster of buildings with a total area of 139m². In addition there are derelict former brickworks buildings on the site with a total footprint of approximately 145m². • Upon acquiring the site, the applicant removed three stables on the site used by the previous owners. There is an open sided horse shelter in the adjacent field to the east. • Landscaping would be provided to soften the effect of the building on the surrounding area. • The sandstone boundary wall on the Blackburn Old Road frontage would be re- instated, and new gates installed, to be kept permanently locked to avoid use by pedestrians or vehicles. • Off-road parking for 4 cars would be provided within the site to avoid causing a traffic nuisance at the road junction. • The Police have been called in to investigate intruders on site on several occasions. The proposed building would make the site more secure and less of a drain on Police resources. • It is essential that this type of operation is located within a rural setting. • The applicant has installed 2 temporary structures on site, a portakabin and a metal storage container, to be used to decant existing equipment and birds of prey from the

35 existing aviary/bird hospital until the new building has been completed. The buildings have been painted green to reduce the impact on the neighbourhood. A temporary crushed hardcore base has been laid to allow ease of movement between the site access gates and the temporary buildings. • In his opinion these very special circumstances justify the proposed development and outweigh any other considerations.

Observations

The key issues for consideration in this case are the acceptability of the development in terms of Green Belt policy, and the scale, design and appearance of the development and its impact on the visual amenities of the area together with any highway safety issues.

The site lies within the Green Belt. Under Local Plan Policy S1, which reflects Government Guidance on development within Green Belts, planning permission will not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the erection of new buildings other than for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation and cemeteries. The proposed building, providing accommodation for birds, would not fall into any of these categories and thus must be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There is no evidence presented as to why such a facility could not be provided within the urban area.

The applicants contend that there are very special circumstances in this case which would justify the grant of permission contrary to the Green Belt policy of restraint. However, in my opinion, the applicants have not adequately demonstrated that there are very special circumstances to justify the proposed development. No evidence has been submitted to show that the site has been used as an aviary although the applicant claims to have utilised the site for many years for this purpose. One building was in use to accommodate a bird of prey when the applicant made enquires in 2006 to use the site to re-locate his electrical contracting business on the site. The applicant made further enquiries in 2007 to erect two buildings on the site – one his electrical contracting business and the second for use as an aviary.

The buildings and structures currently on site are to be removed but the present buildings have very little impact on the open nature of this green belt area to the north of Blackburn Old Road all being surrounded by dense foliage and undergrowth. The main structure used to house birds is in fact an enclosure formed from metal sheets with an open netting/mesh “roof”. This forms five pens. At the time of a recent site visit there were only two birds each in one pen and the other three were unused with the floors overgrown with nettles. In addition there is a disused vehicle body on wheels, in poor condition, and two other small derelict buildings in an overgrown area both of which are beyond any use. The present use of these structures, buildings and the vehicle is very low key and they are not readily visible form outside the site.

The building now proposed appears to be over-generous in size for the facilities for the use described in the application. The building would measure 18.7m x 7.7m and 4.3m to the ridge and be of permanent materials and would clearly be visible from outside the site. PPG2 refers to the need to prevent conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt and one purpose of the Green Belt being to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Approval of this proposal, without adequate justification,

36 would be likely to result in pressure to develop other sites which are within the Green Belt but on the urban fringe and particularly susceptible to pressure for development, thereby resulting in encroachment into the countryside.

Policy S1 and PPG2 stress the need to maintain the openness of the Green Belt. Although the scheme involves the removal of a number of structures and some derelict buildings and their replacement by a single building, there is a clear difference in scale, appearance and outward impact between the existing and proposed buildings. The existing buildings are insubstantial, in poor condition and unsightly in appearance, and appear to be nearing the end of their useful life. The existing pens, which are formed from metals sheets about 2.6m high are without roofs cannot be classed as a building. The wheeled vehicle body, although indicated on the submitted plans as an existing aviary, is in fact disused and all structures are surrounded by overgrown shrubs and trees and are not readily visible from the road frontage, with limited outward impact. The proposed building would measure 18.7m x 7.7m maximum width, with a maximum ridge height of 4.3m. It would be partly-rendered and partly clad with timber, with a slate roof, and incorporate double entrance doors, 11 windows and 10 Velux rooflights. In my view, the proposed building would have a significantly greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the low-key structures which it would replace. The formation of 4 parking spaces and areas of hardstanding and paths would also reduce the openness of the Green Belt. I consider that the proposed development would have an unacceptably detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy 20 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan aims to accommodate landscape change in a positive way, and the Landscape Strategy for Lancashire forms the basis for this policy by identifying key environmental features for each landscape character type and the particular forces for change affecting them. Under Policy 20, proposals will be assessed, amongst other matters, in relation to visual intrusion. I consider that the proposed development would result in visual intrusion, and therefore would be contrary to Policy 20. The highway authority considers that the development would only be acceptable if a visibility splay was provided along Dean Lane in order to improve visibility for vehicles emerging from the site. In practical terms this could be achieved but would require the removal of a considerable length of established hedging which would in itself be detrimental to the rural character and visual amenity of the area.

Therefore my view is the proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt causing harm to the Green Belt in clear conflict with express purposes of the Green Belt. It would damage the openness of the area, and cause serious harm to the rural landscape of an area on the fringe of the built-up area of Great Harwood in conflict with development plan policies

The objectors have suggested that the applicant may later wish to use the proposed building for other purposes, such for commercial purposes or as a dwelling, although none of the information submitted in the application suggests that this is the case. The use of the building could be limited by a condition to use as an aviary/bird hospital only. However, once the building is in place, it would be difficult to argue that a future application for its re-use for an alternative purpose, or even its demolition and replacement, would have a different impact on the Green Belt.

37 The recent siting of a portakabin and metal container and the formation of a hardstanding on the site has been the subject of complaints from local residents, and has been investigated by the Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer. The applicant claims that the buildings are required temporarily to accommodate equipment and birds from the existing buildings until the proposed building is constructed, and the hardstanding is required to allow ease of access between the site gates and the temporary buildings. Under permitted development rights, planning permission is not required for:

“The provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out on, in, under or over that land or on land adjoining that land.” However, development is not permitted if:

“Planning permission is required for those operations but is not granted or deemed to be granted.”

The buildings and hardstanding are inappropriate harmful development within the Green Belt, for the same reasons given above. If Members resolve to refuse planning permission, I would request that approval be given to pursue enforcement action to secure the removal of the unauthorised buildings and hardstanding.

Recommendation

Refuse for the following reasons and that members authorise enforcement action to secure the removal of the unauthorised portakabin and container and hardstanding:

Reasons for refusal

1 The proposed development is located within the Green Belt as defined in the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. Within the Green Belt planning permission will not be given except in very special circumstances for development other than for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, outdoor sport and recreation, cemeteries and institutions standing in extensive grounds, or other uses appropriate to a rural area. Therefore the proposed development is contrary to Policy 6 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan and Policy S1 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the applicant has not put forward sufficient very special circumstances as to why this policy should be set aside.

2 The proposed development, involving the erection of a building, the formation of hardsurfacing and the parking of vehicles, would be visually intrusive and would detract from the character, appearance and visual amenities of the rural area. The formation of an adequate access to the site would also involve the removal of a considerable section of established hedgerow. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan, Policy 20 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan and the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance: Landscape and Heritage.

______

11/08/0388 161B Richmond Road Accrington BB5 0JB Change of use from Snooker Hall (Class D2) to Restaurant and Function Rooms (Sui Generis) and formation of a car park Mr Nazakat Ali

Site description and locality This former Methodist Church is sited on the south east side of Richmond Road, Accrington. Immediately to the north east of the former church is a modern church building which is currently operating as a mosque. Apart from the Mosque the area is entirely residential in character with a mixture of terraced housing, semi-detached dwellings, flats and bungalows. The application site excludes the mosque but wraps around the mosque building at both the front and rear.

Details of proposal Change of use from snooker hall (Class D1) to Restaurant and function room (sui generis) and the creation of a car park for 44 cars including 2 disabled car parking spaces. The submission shows a ground floor function room for perhaps 160 persons and a first floor restaurant with 150 covers. Some building work, including the sandblasting of the building and the replacement of windows has already taken place but the uses have not yet commenced.

Planning History 11/00/0221 Change of use to snooker hall – approved conditionally – 12.7.00 11/91/0107 Change of use from retail sales to service, repair and retail and wholesale of domestic appliances – approved conditionally 6.9.91 11/87/0724 Continued use for retail sales – approved conditionally 14.6.89 11/76/0042 Renewal of permission for warehouse for carpet and furniture storage - withdrawn

Consultations Lancashire County Council (Highways) – Concerned about the level of parking provision which is only about 1/3 rd of that permitted under the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Head of Environmental Health – No objections subject to condition limited noise from the premises and informative notes relating to food preparation, extraction of cooking fumes and suitable storage of waste. Site notice and neighbours notified – 3 letters received, one in support and one not objecting to the change of use but complaining that the work has already commenced and has caused noise disturbance. One letter objects to the development making the following comments: • We would like to object to the change of use from Snooker Hall to Restaurant and function rooms. This is a residential area with quite a lot of elderly people around the building. We feel it is quire unacceptable for yet another restaurant in Accrington to be sited here, let alone function rooms. • We are concerned about noise which will be generated by people coming and going at all hours, about drunks spilling onto the streets, which has happened with the snooker hall because they took their own alcohol with them and, if catering for Asian weddings, fireworks going off.

39 • Another concern is the smell of food being cooked. Enough smell comes from the fast food stop on Richmond Road in the past. • We also have concerned about parking. There is not room and there has already been trouble with people parking to go to the mosque. Locals have complained to the Residents’ Association about not being consulted over the church becoming a mosque, about noise and parking all over, in front of their houses and blocking buses and other traffic on Richmond Road. • We also feel that the decision has already been made to pass these plans as all the work has already taken place. Locals have already put up with months of noise, dust and burning rubbish from these premises and feel they were not consulted properly in the first place when it became a snooker hall.

Relevant policy Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Policy 7 Car parking standards

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan “Saved” Policies R2 Centralisation of shops, restaurants and hot food takeaways E10 Scale, density design

Observations This application was considered at the last Planning Committee on the 27 th August and subsequently deferred pending further consideration with the applicant with regards to parking provision. The application was previously reported as follows:

This application seeks planning permission for a change of use of a former Methodist Church which was granted conditional planning permission for use as a snooker hall in July 2000. The owner is currently converting the premises (without the benefit of planning permission) into a function room and restaurant to be used as both a stand alone restaurant and as a function room principally for Asian weddings.

There are no specific policies which relate to this mixed use proposal, however, part of the proposed use is as a restaurant (Use Class A3) which is covered by “Saved” Policy R2 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. This indicates, amongst other things, that applications for restaurants and cafes will only be permitted within the defined shopping areas as shown on the Proposals Map. This is to ensure the retention of compact shopping centres and the co-ordination of development with public facilities such as car parking. These premises are not sited within a defined shopping area.

By utilising existing car parking spaces at the adjacent mosque and the application premises the scheme proposes 44 car parking spaces (including 2 disabled spaces). Policy 7 and Parking Standards of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan requires a maximum of 100 car parking spaces for the proposal. Lancashire County Council (Highway Authority) has raised concerns about the level of parking provision which is only about 1/3 rd of the maximum permitted under the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan.

Depending on the success of the enterprise it is likely that this will result in significant overspill into the surrounding area, and as a result in the obstruction to traffic, and the inconvenience of nearby residents. As a function room it is likely that a proportion of visitor

40 will be attracted from a considerable distance and, in most cases, travel by private car rather than public transport. Although Richmond Road is a bus route, it is a local rather then main urban route so is unlikely to mitigate this factor. In view of this the highway authority is concerned that the scale of this proposal is grater than the site can adequately accommodate.

Two of the letters received relate to the noise generated during the conversion. Whilst there is undoubtedly some disturbance to neighbours expected during the development stage this is seen as an acceptable short term issue of limited duration. The Head of Environmental Health has raised no objection to the proposal in terms of noise and disturbance to neighbours subject to a condition being attached to any permission to limit the noise from the premises. In addition smells from food preparation will have to be ducted through an appropriately designed flue and I am advised by Environmental Health colleagues that modern flues are efficient at dealing with this matter.

Concerns have also been expressed relating to the consumption of alcohol, however, the applicant has confirmed that it is not his intention to have alcohol on the premises. In addition is alcohol was sold on the premises this would be a matter for the Licensing Committee.

Complaints relating to the use of the former church as a mosque cannot be addressed through the planning system as planning permission is not required to change a place of worship from one religion to another.

Although this imposing former Methodist Church is not “listed” it is nevertheless an important attractive building and the initial work carried out by the applicant has improved its appearance. Judging the proposed use requires balancing the effect of any changes, such as impact on neighbours and a likely shortfall of parking space, and maintaining the integrity of the building against policies which aim to centralise uses such as restaurants.

I am persuaded by the highway authority that the size and nature of the proposals are likely to result in parking levels which cannot be met by the proposed arrangements. Bearing in mind the location of the property, surrounded by residential properties I agree that there is the very real likelihood of significant on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity. I therefore consider that the application should be refused.

Further consideration of the parking provision and following discussions with the applicant’s agent the applicant has indicated that he is prepared to accept a limit on the number of customers at the premises to 150 persons. However, Lancashire County Council is still not satisfied with the level of parking provision. In addition they consider that the number of spaces is not achievable within the available space, particularly adjacent to Walker Avenue. They are also concerned that there are no details of the proposed car park access off Richmond Road as currently there is only a footpath crossing point. A full design is required, including visibility splays, to enable an assessment of its suitability to be made as the proposed access is single track and bounded by the mosque and the high boundary wall to the application site with poor visibility.

41 In view of the above I am not prepared to change my previous recommendation to refuse for the reasons outlined above.

Recommendation

Refuse for the following reasons:

1 The proposed car parking arrangements are considered inadequate for the use proposed in particular having regard to the location of the property in this predominantly residential area and the size of the restaurant and function rooms which are likely to attract significant numbers of car- borne passengers. The proposed car parking arrangements and unsatisfactory access are likely to result in the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles on the highway resulting in obstruction to traffic to the detriment of highway safety and these conditions are likely to inconvenience local residents and be detrimental to residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Local Plan.

2 The premises are located outside any shopping area as defined on the Proposals Map of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy R2 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan in that the development, outside an established shopping centre, would be contrary to the aim of providing and enhancing compact, viable and vital shopping centres where public facilities such as car parking can be provided.

______

11/08/0405 Victoria Works John Street Oswaldtwistle Application for variation of condition No. 6 of 11/04/0326 to allow working hours 6.00am - 10.00pm Monday to Friday and 7.00am - 6.00pm Saturday, Sundays and Bank Holidays for a period of 10 weekends per year only Flair Flooring Supplies Ltd

Site description and locality

Details of proposal

Application for variation of condition No. 6 of application no.11/04/0326 which restricts the working hours of the premises to 07:00 – 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and from 08:00 – 13:00 on Saturdays with no working on either Sundays of Public Holidays. The proposal is to allow working hours to be extended from 06.00 hours to 22 hours Monday to Friday and

42 07.00 hours to 18.00 hours Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays the weekend element being for no more than 10 weekends per year.

Planning history

11/08/0403 Use of land for siting of 22 metal shipping containers for the storage of stock and erection of fencing to storage enclosure for metal trolleys and other equipment – current application 11/05/0741 Formation of window openings on gable end at first floor – approved conditionally 8.12.05 11/05/0404 Erection of fencing – approved conditionally 3.11.05 11/05/0314 Partial demolition of disused factory unit, erection of portal frame warehouse – approved conditionally 30.6.05 11/04/0326 – Retrospective application for change of use from industrial (B2) to warehousing (B8), erection of warehouse extension and canopy over loading bay and retention of palisade fencing and CCTV poles - approved conditionally 25.6.04 11/00/0345 – Erection of building to house diesel tank – approved conditionally 8.9.00 11/99/0474 – Erection of warehouse extension – approved conditionally 19.1.00 11/89/0071 – Erection of chimney stack – approved conditionally 5.4.89 11/84/0564 – Erection of covered loading bay and bin storage area – approved conditionally 29.1.8484

Consultations

Lancashire County Council (Highways) – No objections Head of Environmental Health – Recommends refusal on grounds of disturbance and loss of amenity due to noise.

Site Notice and Neighbours notified – 2 letters, one enclosing a petition with 10 signatures (attached at Appendix 1) have been received objecting and making the following comments: • I object to this most strongly especially on a Sunday or before 7 in the morning. I am in my seventies and don’t like to be awake before seven. Sometimes it is very loud. I know people have to work but we do live in a residential area and there must be a reasonable time to start work with the loud noise they make. • Residents of John Street Estate wish to bring before the Council their concern regarding Flair Carpets (the applicant) wanting to operate at weekends and early mornings. Sunday is still very important to many people as a peaceful day. • Weekdays before 7.30 a.m. is also not very kind to people who have to hear noise for the rest of the day. • We understand the industry has to go on but the noise coming from that place can be too much at times, as it echoes around the buildings.

Relevant policy

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan “Saved” Policies Policy I 2 Redevelopment of industrial premises Policy E10 Scale, density, design

43 Observations

This application has been submitted as a result of an investigation by the Planning Enforcement Officer following a complaint about use of the yard for the storage of materials in breach of a planning condition.

Planning permission is sought to vary a condition attached to a previous planning application for a change of use to warehouse (Application No. 11/04/0326) which limits the working hours at the premises to the hours of 07.00 hours and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and 08.00 hours to 13.00 hours on Saturdays only with no work at the premises on Sundays or Public Holidays. This condition was imposed in order to protect the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent properties which adjoin the site.

In support of the application the following information has been submitted:

Our clients acquired Victoria Works in the summer of 2003, with a view of setting up a Distribution Centre for their major customers. At the time of the purchase the demand from their customers did not require them to operate late hours or at weekends for which they requested the current working hours in the 2004 application, when they also provided a canopy over the loading bays. As the business has progressed and market conditions have tightened there are more and more demands coming in from major customers.

They now have to turn around deliveries in a much shorter time than they had to in 2004. They also now have two range changes in a year, where in 2004 they only had one change. These operation changes now require the company to work for longer hours, for which they have the co-operation of their staff. They have at the moment 20 staff and they take on up to 5 temporary staff every day.

Members will see from the planning history section of this report that a further current application (Application no. 11/08/0403) has been submitted for the enclosure of the existing canopy to the loading bay, use of land for storage of 22 No. metal containers and the erection for fencing to create a storage enclosure. The applicant has indicated that he is prepared to encase the loading bay in order to reduce the impact of noise during delivery periods. In addition to the noise generated by delivery vehicles and fork lift trucks the company use metal trolleys on to which the carpets are loaded and these can be noisy in operation.

Concerns have been expressed by neighbours relating to the noise currently generated from the site and the Head of Environmental Health has recommended that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed extended hours will result in disturbance and loss of amenity due to noise from proposed early morning working, including deliveries to the site.

The loading bay is situated approximately 16 metres away from the nearest dwellings on John Street. Even with the proposed enclosure of the loading bay the Head of Environmental Health has indicated that noise “leakage” will still occur due to the need to provide openings with upvc curtains. In view of this I consider that due to the close proximity of these dwelling and the potential for noise and disturbance to neighbours then this application should be refused.

44 Recommendation:

Refuse for the following reason:

Reasons for refusal

1 The proposed extension of the working hours on this site would be likely to result in increased noise and disturbance for residents of the nearby dwellings at times when it would be reasonable to expect quieter conditions. The problem of noise disturbance would be exacerbated because of the close proximity of some dwellings to the site and the relaxation of the condition would therefore be detrimental to the amenities of local residents. For these reasons the proposal would be contrary to "Saved" Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

______

11/08/0406 6 Edinburgh Drive Oswaldtwistle Accrington BB5 3AR Erection of extension to roof Chamberlain, Flood Construction Ltd

Site description and locality

This semi-detached dormer bungalow is situated on the north side of Edinburgh Drive, Oswaldtwistle. The area is entirely residential in character with a mixture of other similar dormer bungalows and semi-detached houses with open front gardens.

Details of proposal

The erection of an extension to the existing front and rear dormers by extending the dormers to wrap around the hipped roof to the side of the property and a side window in the resulting side dormer. The proposed dormer extension is to be faced in materials to the match the existing roof.

Planning history

Nil

Consultations

Neighbours notified – 1 letter received objecting to the development and making the following comments: • I would advise that we do object to the proposed extension to the dormer not only will it make our house look strange and will misalign the symmetry of the house as a whole, it would have very little kerb appeal and would look extremely odd in the local neighbourhood; especially bearing in mind no other property locally has this type of extension. • I would hope planning for this work would be refused.

Relevant policy

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan “Saved” Policies E10 Scale, density, design Consultation draft Householder Design Guide

Observations

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of an extension to the existing front and rear dormers by extending across the hipped roof at the side and by forming a window in the side gable.

Council policy on the erection of dormer extensions is found in the Householder Design Guide which has recently been prepared as part of the Local Development Framework for Hyndburn and consolidates design guidance which has been in operation for many years. The Consultation Draft has been approved by Cabinet and is due out to consultation early 2009. This policy requires that dormers should normally be located on the rear of dwelling and kept as small as possible with a substantial area of pitched roof retained. It also requires that the tops of dormer be kept well below ridge level and set back from the front face of the wall.

The addition of new front dormers is not normally acceptable: however, this property is a dormer bungalow with both front and rear small dormers built as part of the original dwelling. The proposal is to extend the front dormer with the “box” continuing around the side and back to join the existing rear dormer. A letter has been received from the neighbour who lives at the attached semi-detached dormer bungalow who is concerned about the look of the proposed extension. It is my view that the proposed extension is visually unacceptable as it will extend the ridge of the roof by approximately 3.3 metres and create a box like appearance at the side. A window is proposed in the side dormer which will overlook the neighbour’s property at No. 4 Edinburgh Drive. In addition, if allowed, the proposed extension will set a precedent for other similar unacceptable dormer extensions.

In view of the above I consider that the application is unacceptable and should be refused.

Recommendation

Refuse for the following reasons:

Reasons for refusal

1 The erection of this large and prominent extension to the roof of the property, facing the public highway and extending around the side of the roof, would constitute a poor design which would be out of scale and character with the existing building, visually dominant in the street scene, and therefore detrimental to visual amenity. In addition, if allowed this extension would sent an undesirable precedent for the approval of other similar extensions. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

46 2 The erection of the proposed extension, because of its location and design which incorporates a side window, would constitute an unneighbourly form of development which would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling, in particular by overlooking and by reducing privacy. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

______

11/08/0425 Laneside Garage Livingstone Road Accrington BB5 5BT Variation of condition No. 3 of 11/99/0454 to extend working hours from 7.30 hours to 18.00 hours Monday to Fridays to 8.00 hours to 19.00 hours Mr N Hussain

Site description and locality

The site the subject of this application is located on the north side of Livingstone Road directly opposite its junction with East Crescent. The site is bounded to the south by residential properties on East Crescent and Haywood Road, and to the north, east and west by open land, including a football field which is at a slightly higher level than the application site. This open land, together with the application site itself, is within the Green Belt as shown on the Proposals Map of the adopted Hyndburn Borough Local Plan (as corrected in September 2000). There is also a group of lock-up garages to the east of the application site.

The site consists of a vehicle repair garage located in a fenced compound. Work is underway on a scheme approved in 2005 for the demolition of part of the building and erection of an extension and the erection of a front boundary wall. The use was granted permanent planning permission in November 1999 (11/99/0454) following a number of temporary planning permissions. This permission was subject to a condition No.3 which restricted the hours of work to: 07.30 - 18.00 Monday to Friday 08.00 - 13.00 Saturday No work to take place on Sundays or Bank Holidays

Details of proposal

The application seeks permission for the variation of condition No.3 to extend the working hours on Monday to Friday from 07.30-18.00 to 08.00-19.00. There would be no change to the permitted hours on Saturday, and there would continue to be no work on Sundays or Bank Holidays

Planning history

11/07/0735 Demolition of part of building and erection of extension to form MOT bays (amended plans 11/05/0253). Approved conditionally 16.4.2008.

47 11/07/0403 Variation of working hours (11/07/0028) 8.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive. No working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Refused 20.9.2007. Appeal dismissed 7.7.2008. 11/07/0028 Certificate of Lawfulness: Condition no.3 of planning permission 11/99/0454 (hours of opening) (Resubmission 11/06/0574). Issued subject to hours condition attached to 11/99/0454 5.4.2007. 11/06/0574 Certificate of Lawfulness: Condition no.3 of planning permission 11/99/0454 (hours of opening). Withdrawn 11.12.2006. 11/05/0253 Demolition of part of building and erection of extension to form MOT bays. Approved conditionally 21.7.2005. 11/04/0023 Erection of industrial building, car parking and landscaping. Refused 1.4.2004. Appeal dismissed 15.2.2005. 11/03/0050 Erection of industrial building and landscaping. Refused 14.5.2003. Appeal dismissed 24.9.2003. 11/02/0071 Demolition of existing extension and erection of single storey extension. Refused 27.3.2002. 11/01/0458 Demolition of existing extension and erection of single storey extension. Refused 2.1.2002. 11/01/0312 Demolition of existing extension and erection of single storey extension. Refused 12.9.2001. 11/99/0454 Continued use of the site and building as a repair garage. Approved conditionally 24.11.1999.

Consultations

Head of Environmental Health: Hours of operation should be restricted to hours allowed under 11/99/0454. Lancashire County Council (Highways): Concern about the impact of the extended hours on residents’ parking in the vicinity.

Neighbouring properties notified: 3 letters have been received from neighbouring residents, raising the following objections: • The proposal would affect the living conditions of the immediate residents through noise and disturbance, having a severe effect on the quality of life in a residential area. The recent Planning Inspectorate’s decision relating to a proposal to extend the hours of working refers to these issues. The applicant would be better off if he was on an industrial estate or somewhere he cannot disrupt the residents. • Condition 3 has already been broken time after time in the past. The applicant would not comply with the opening hours proposed, as some days he would not open until late and would close late. • The fact that the applicant is prepared to start half an hour later should not come into it. The requirement to finish at 18.00 hours is really important to residents, and to younger people who use the bottom of Livingstone Road as a play area instead of playing on the narrow roads in the area. Finishing at 19.00 hours would lead to more disruption to residents in the early evening. • People using the garage do not think when coming out with their cars, and just pull out at speed. If there were children playing they would be seriously hurt. • The site lies within the Green Belt, directly opposite a residential estate, and is an inappropriate development. The high wall being built at the front of the property denies a visual amenity and an openness to the residents. The applicant has started a building

48 project with steel girders which he has left and it looks like an eyesore. The fact that speed bumps are to be provided in the area should not come into it because the one nearest to the garage is quite a way away from the garages entrances.

Relevant policies

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Policy S1 Green Belt Policy E10 Scale, density, design

Applicant’s comments

In support of his application, the applicant has made the following comments: • In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector confirmed that the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of nearby residents in relation to noise and disturbance. She noted that MOT’s carried out within the test bay would be unlikely to cause undue noise and disturbance, but vehicle movements to and from and within the site and the general outdoor activities of the business must also be assessed. Accordingly, the Inspector’s view was that the proposed extension to the opening hours would have an adverse effect on local residents. • However, there is nothing in the Inspector’s letter which indicates that she drew a distinction in terms of impact on residential amenity between the proposed extension for weekday hours and those for Saturdays. • The proposal in this application involves a net extension to the working day of only half an hour. In comparison, in the appeal scheme involved an extension to the working day on Saturdays of six hours. The applicant feels that, notwithstanding complaints by nearby residents in respect of noise (which the Council has never considered sufficient to merit taking any action against), a net extension to the weekday working day of half an hour would not by itself be significantly detrimental to residential amenity and would not be contrary to Policy E10. • Traffic calming measures are proposed for the area. These include speed bumps located to either side of the garage which will effectively reduce the speed of all traffic including that to and from the site. Furthermore, any noise generated as a consequence of an additional half hour opening on weekdays must be assessed in the context of ambient noise levels at that time of day. The applicant is strongly of the view that noise resulting specifically from the operation of the garage would not be significantly detrimental to residential amenity.

Observations

The activities at Laneside Garage have for many years been the source of complaints from local residents. Since 1999, the working hours have been restricted by condition 3 attached to planning permission 11/99/0454, in order to protect the residential amenities of adjacent occupiers. The same condition has been attached to both planning permissions for development at this site granted since 1999. The applicant has previously attempted, through an application for a Certificate of Lawful Use, to argue that the hours of working condition imposed is invalid, but the decision made on that application was that the lawful use of the premises is subject to the hours of working condition. Consequently the

49 working hours at the premises are required to be in accordance with the condition imposed on the 1999 permission.

Following complaints by neighbouring residents, the Council issued a Breach of Condition Notice on 15 May 2006, requiring the applicant to operate in accordance with the working hours condition. On 17 May 2007, the applicant pleaded guilty before Hyndburn Magistrates Court to a charge that he failed to comply with the Breach of Condition Notice. The applicant was given a conditional discharge for 12 months and an order to pay £200 towards prosecution costs. From June 2007, there were further complaints from neighbours that the applicant was again working outside of the permitted hours. On 11 July 2008, the applicant pleaded guilty before Hyndburn Magistrates Court to a charge that he failed to comply with the Breach of Condition Notice issued on 15 May 2006, and was ordered to pay a total of £765, comprising £500 fine, £250 contribution towards prosecution costs, and £15 victim surcharge. On 14 August 2008 the applicant’s appeal against this sentence was dismissed, and he was also ordered to pay a further £200 costs in respect of the Council's costs.

The applicant has previously applied to extend the hours of operation at the premises (application no.11/07/0403). The application was refused on 20 September 2007 for the following reason: The extension of the hours of working at the premises would, by reason of noise and disturbance created by the coming and going of vehicles and general activity at times outside the normal working day, have a significantly detrimental impact on the residential amenity of adjacent occupiers, and would therefore be contrary to Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

A subsequent appeal was dismissed and this appeal decision is now a very significant material consideration in determining the present application. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector made the following comments which are of relevance in considering the current proposal: • MOTs carried out within the test bay on site would be unlikely to cause undue noise and disturbance. However, the comings and goings of vehicles to and from the garage, their manoeuvring and parking both within and outside the site, and the general outdoor activities of the business must also be assessed. • The garage has a history of complaints about noise and disturbance, prolonged by excessive opening hours in breach of condition. Evidence from local residents indicates that vehicle activities are not confined to within the site and suggests that disturbance is also caused by employees revving engines on the adjoining highway, amongst other things. In response, the Council, after serving a Breach of Condition Notice, resorted successfully to prosecution over excessive opening hours. The lack of a prosecution specifically for noise nuisance does not mean that there is no noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents. • There is already a perceived detriment to living conditions. Irrespective of whether the proposed hours represent a modest increase and, regardless of whether they could be classed as within the normal working day in a modern 24/7 culture, any additional operating hours would exacerbate the existing harm experienced by local residents. • Traffic calming measures are proposed in the area by Lancashire County Council. Whilst, in itself, the effect on highway safety is insufficient to dismiss the appeal, her concern on this point lends weight to her decision to dismiss the appeal in respect of her conclusion on the main issue.

50 • In a primarily residential area such as this, local residents are entitled to expect a reasonable degree of peace and quiet in their homes. She concludes that the proposal would generate unacceptable additional noise and disturbance outside dwellings, from activities such as vehicles pulling up, engines revving, car doors banging, and customers entering and leaving the premises, and the proposal would conflict with Policy E10. Even if the level of increased activity were modest, it would still unreasonably augment the existing adverse effect on local residents.

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the applicant has now scaled down his proposal for an extension to his working hours. In the appeal proposal, the applicant sought an increase to 08.00 to 19.00 Mondays to Saturdays inclusive. In the current application he has deleted the Saturday afternoon/evening working previously proposed, and he now proposes working hours of 08.00 to 19.00 Mondays to Fridays only, with Saturdays unchanged.

Due to the location of the garage near to residential properties, there is potential for the amenities of neighbouring residents to suffer loss of amenity as a result of the activities taking place at the premises. Whilst the activities within the site may not result in significant noise, in particular once the new building is in use, the coming and going of vehicles to and from the premises, their manoeuvring and parking both within and outside the site, and the general outdoor activities of the business inevitably has an impact on neighbouring residents. At present, this impact is restricted to the normal working day. However, if the proposed extension of hours were permitted, neighbouring residents would suffer noise and disturbance in the early evening at a time when they could reasonably expect a quiet peaceful environment commensurate with a residential area.

Lancashire County Council as Highway Authority has expressed concern regarding the potential impact of the extended hours on residents’ parking in the vicinity. One of the criteria for assessing the need for a Residents Only Parking scheme is the level of non- resident parking after 18.00 hours, indicating this as the time of day after which residents can expect to be able to park more freely in their neighbourhood.

In my view, the proposed extension of working hours is unacceptable, and would lead to a loss of amenity to neighbouring residents of a significant and unacceptable degree. This view is in accordance with the Inspector’s views, as expressed in the dismissal of the appeal, and I recommend that planning permission be refused.

Recommendation

Refuse for the following reason:

Reasons for refusal

1 The extension of the hours of working at the premises would, by reason of noise and disturbance created by the coming and going of vehicles and general activity at times outside the normal working day, and increased demand for on-street parking space, have a significantly detrimental impact on the residential amenity of adjacent occupiers, and would therefore be contrary to Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

______

Contact Officer: B Clarkson Dip MRTPI Address: Council Offices, Scaitcliffe House, Ormerod Street, Accrington, Lancs BB5 0PF Tel No: (01254) 388111