REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE 12 DECEMBER 2007

REPORT BY: CHIEF PLANNING AND 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. 11/07/0105 Lords House Farm, Wilpshire Road Rishton 2 Blackburn 2. 11/07/0350 Former Huncoat Power Station off Lowergate 9 Road Accrington 3. 11/07/0648 Land adjacent No 11 Bridge Houses Baxenden 16 Accrington 4. 11/07/0654 Land at Pollard Street Accrington 19 5. 11/07/0665 Greycroft Residential Home 15 Queens Road 24 Accrington 6. 11/07/0669 210 – 212 Blackburn Road Accrington 28 7. 11/07/0679 103 Willows Lane Accrington 33 8. 11/07/0686 Land at 309 – 317 Union Road Oswaldtwistle 36 9. 11/07/0705 Accrington & Rossendale College Sandy Lane 42 Accrington 10. 11/07/0714 43 Willow Park Oswaldtwistle 45 11. 11/07/0629 Former Sewage Works Hermitage Street Rishton 49 12. 11/07/0647 Great Harwood Lodge Edward Street Great 56 Harwood 13. 11/07/0744 Owl Hall Plantation Road Accrington 60

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.

1 THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL (Cat A)

11/07/0105 Lords House Farm Wilpshire Road Rishton Blackburn BB1 4AH Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use: Use by customers other than solely the disabled in contravention of planning conditions attached to planning permissions 11/93/0398 & 11/94/0086. The Trustees

Site description and locality

Lords House Farm is located to the east of Wilpshire Road and to the north of Lee Lane, Rishton. The site is accessed via a track 300m long which runs to the side of Close Nook Farmhouse and Cottage. LHF is used as a centre for riding for the disabled, but has also expanded the facilities provided to include other activities. The site lies within the Green Belt and is located in a highly visible position on land which rises up towards the north.

Details of proposal

The applicant has applied for a Certificate of Lawfulness pursuant to Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1991 on the grounds that the use of the premises in breach of a condition on planning permissions restricting the use to disabled people began more than ten years before the date of this application.

Planning history

11/05/0208 Erection of undercover riding arena. Approved conditionally 10.11.2005. 11/02/0490 Installation of septic tank. Approved conditionally 29.11.2002. 11/01/0519 Erection of timber building for animals and storage of agricultural machinery. Approved conditionally 18.1.2002. 11/98/0059 Reconstruction of barn to form training rooms, kitchen equipment store and first floor residential accommodation. Approved conditionally 27.8.1998. 11/94/0086 Formation of riding arena. Approved conditionally 26.4.1994. 11/93/0398 Additional use of stables and land for riding for the disabled. Approved conditionally 15.9.1993. 11/90/0382 Change of use from non-agricultural to horse breeding. Approved conditionally 20.9.1990. 11/89/0810 Change of use from agricultural land to horse breeding. Approved conditionally 9.4.1990.

Consultations

Head of Environmental Health: No comment. Neighbouring properties notified: 13 letters of objection have been received from and behalf of the owners of Close Nook Cottage and from other residents of the Borough. The following objections have been raised:  The only access to LHF is along the single track down the side of Close Nook Cottage, which was a dirt track but has now been tarmacked. The access track is not for the sole use

2 of the applicants, but is owned by the owners of Close Nook Cottage, and the applicants have right of way along the track. There is a litigation matter involving LHF and the owners of the track. If the planning regulations had not been breached the access track would be a safe place and not a matter which needs to be litigated upon. In considering whether to allow a Certificate of Lawfulness, the Committee should be aware of the intolerable situation which the owners of Close Nook Cottage find themselves in.  The development of a commercial riding centre would result in an increase in traffic movements which would create serious safety issues for the occupiers of Close Nook Cottage, their visitors and their animals and livestock. The applicants have stated that there would be no increased traffic movements, but it is inconceivable that traffic movements will remain the same after future developments. Surveys of existing traffic movements along the access showed levels varied between 66-160 movements per day, and over 6 days there were 817 movements. It is a single track road with no passing points, and therefore at times traffic will back up possibly onto the main road. At times the track is gridlocked due to the amount of traffic entering or leaving the farm, making it impossible to access their property. Many years ago there was little traffic using the track but the business of LHF has increased to such an extent that their peace and enjoyment has suffered, and they have been forced to use calming measures on the track.  The track emerges onto Wilpshire Road, which is used as a “rat run” at peak times by traffic seeking to avoid the Whitebirk roundabout congestion and along which traffic travels at fast speed creating a hazard to emerging traffic. In the past, speeding vehicles have left the road near to this point. If this application is to go forward it should be on the basis of a completely separate access unique to the applicant, with appropriate passing places and emerging at a safer point than the existing junction. LHF have indicated that a road direct from the farm to Wilpshire Road would be expensive and not acceptable to the Planning Department.  When they moved to Close Nook Cottage 11 years ago, the farm was used for disabled riding only, and they never had a problem with this. However, they feel that it is only over the last 5 years that LHF has been used for people other than the disabled. They base this on the amount of traffic which has dramatically increased in the last 5 years.  The applicant’s advert in Yellow Pages makes no mention of riding for the disabled. Although the applicants have claimed in the local press that they do not wish the farm to become a commercial enterprise, by their own admission this has already been done, and with the increase in activity this is the only conclusion one can come to. There are children from wealthy backgrounds paying for riding lessons at LHF, who are not disabled or from deprived backgrounds.  The premises opened as a disabled riding school with planning permission for that use, and must be kept as it was first intended, otherwise it makes a mockery of the planning system. If he wished to extend his house he would need to apply for planning permission, and if he failed to do so he would run the risk of having to change it or take it down. Local farmers have had to apply for planning permission through the proper channels. It is pointless having rules and regulations if when they are broken no action is taken. Everyone has to abide by planning laws and there should be no exceptions to the rules, even for charities. The applicants have admitted that they have allowed able bodied people to use the facility from the beginning, but if they are allowed to continue they will be rewarded for their deceit and unacceptable actions, and it is unreasonable to grant a Certificate of Lawfulness when the applicants openly state that they have breached the planning regulations. The applicants have stated that if the Certificate of Lawfulness is not granted they would have to close down, and if so the fault would lie with the trustees.

3  A letter from a Councillor states that the legal standoff between the applicants and their neighbours is of concern to himself and his fellow Councillors. An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness indicates a breach of planning , if that breach is the expansion of the disabled/disadvantaged classification into a full blown commercial enterprise then he concurs with the view that what the enterprise involves should be clarified before a Certificate is issued. Having read the documentation, he has concluded that the applicants have not made it clear what the enterprise entails. A commercial enterprise would require full and unencumbered access, which he understands involves an ownership dispute, and a Certificate should be withheld until the access problem is resolved. In his view, the applicants should reconsider their position in the light of the above points.

Some of the letters submitted by the applicants in evidence express support for the work done by LHF.

Relevant policy

There are no policy considerations in relation to this application.

Observations

Planning permission was granted in 1993 for the use of the land and stables for riding for the disabled. Subsequent permissions were granted in 1994, 1998, 2001 and 2005 for improved facilities. All these permissions were subject to a condition restricting use to the disabled, and the applications were made and determined on the basis that the development was for use by the disabled. The activities at the site have expanded considerably in recent years, and now include training, education and therapy, horticulture, farm and nature reserve tours and camping in gypsy caravans. The applicants state that the use of the premises by people other than the disabled has taken place since 1993 when the charity began.

Applicant’s comments

The applicants have provided the following statements and documents in support of their application:  The application relates to application nos. 11/93/0398 and 11/94/0086. Later applications related to buildings that were then used for the work of the charity, and will be dealt with at a later date once the principle has been confirmed by the Planning office.  Originally when the charity applied for planning permission its intention was to provide facilities and activities for riding by disabled people. Within less than a year of using the site for this purpose, they added additional activities of a therapeutic and educational nature, such as animal care and horticultural activities. From and throughout this time, the therapeutic nature of all these activities was applied to a wide range of disadvantaged and mainstream participants in addition to disabled groups. The disadvantaged individuals and groups include those suffering through social background, ethnic minority, emotional or physical abuse, bullying, behavioural or family difficulties, and siblings of disabled children. They work with children from child development centres and children’s homes, mothers and children in refuges, asylum seekers, young carers, young offenders, children in care or excluded from school, and adults who are abused, suffering from mental health or emotional problems, recovering from alcohol or substance misuse, or at risk of developing physical difficulties through inactivity.

4  Since 1993 thousands of people in the community have been supported by the charity, which does valuable work in the wider community. In most cases, LHF has supported disadvantaged people more successfully than the statutory authorities such as social services or LCC. Often such disadvantages in life are far more disabling than a typical physical or mental disability and have a seriously damaging or restricting effect on the quality of that individual’s life. Given the wide remit that the new DDA covers, it can be difficult to assess from a person’s symptoms whether a disability does or does not exist under this Act. To stick rigidly to a description of disability as a physical disability or a learning disability would be incorrect and not recognise the individual’s needs. A large percentage of their work is now in support of the disadvantaged sector of the community. Given the huge amount of facilities and support already available to disabled community, the Council should support the government’s remit to look at the needs of the wider community and encourage the support of the disadvantaged and excluded.  LHF has always offered the opportunity to mainstream riders to be part of the essential exercise programme for the horses and ponies used in the therapy programmes. This has always been offered on the basis of a monthly donation to the charity’s work and the opportunity to learn to ride is given to help exercise and school the horses. These donations are vital to the subsidised funding of the therapy sessions, and without this funding the charity would not survive and could not support disabled riders. Without this vital exercise programme they could not operate safely as the animals need to have a varied and faster programme at times to ensure their health and wellbeing and to keep energy levels when used with disabled drivers to a minimum. Some of the current weekly riders have undertaken this exercise from the outset. The mainstream participants include local junior schools and the Pony Club.  Many organisations (including Hyndburn Borough Council Leisure Services) have been working with LHF and bringing disadvantaged and mainstream participants to the premises since they first began. They have hired buildings from the Council, and the Council has been using activities provided at their site for the Hyndburn summer play scheme, which is for both disabled and non-disabled children, for over 10 years.  For over 12 years, LHF has been working as partners with the local FE colleges providing NVQ training in a range of subjects such as IT, literacy and numeracy and animal related subjects.  The growth of activities took a very sharp incline from the outset and has steadied in use as their capacity was reached some 9-10 years ago. The site is not used to a higher degree at present than it was 10 years ago. Within 6 months of starting, the charity had over 100 riders a week, and in 1998 they had over 75 full-time NVQ students who were disadvantaged and would not have coped with a mainstream college setting.  The proportion of participants who are non-disabled and non-disadvantaged is approximately 10%. This does not need to be above this level as it is sufficient to maintain the health and safety needs but is an integral part of the whole ability to deliver their regular sessions. Approximately 60% of their riders are disabled and disadvantaged, and approximately 30-40% are disadvantaged as described above. They strongly disagree that the work with disadvantaged participants was ever an ancillary use of the site as they have been working at these percentage levels for more than 10 years.  A letter from the Principal confirming that from 1995, students from Accrington and Rossendale College (and previously Bury College) who are disadvantaged socially in many ways have been students on mainstream courses at LHF.  A letter from Great Harwood Youth and Community Centre confirming that for well over 6 years their service has liaised with LHF to develop a wide range of educational programmes

5 for a diverse range of young people, some of which are “disabled groups”, but most are from other marginalised economically/socially disadvantaged groups.  A letter from Blackburn with Darwen Connexions confirming that they have used the facilities at LHF for disadvantaged/disaffected young people since 2002, and they believe that the facilities were used by the Careers Service for several years prior to 2002.  A letter from Blackburn & District branch of the Pony Club confirming that they have been using the facilities at LHF with non-disabled children from Blackburn and Lancashire for the last 14 years.  A letter from the Trinity Community Partnership confirming that the Partnership has had strong contacts with LHF for about 10 years, but they are aware that LHF has worked with similar organisations for at least that length of time, with people who are disadvantaged and disaffected in various ways, including socially and economically.  A letter from the Coldwell Inn Project confirming that they have had professional contact with LHF for 5 years, and that LHF’s work has focussed on people and especially children with disabilities but also socially and/or economically disadvantaged people.  A letter from Prime Time Youth and Community Centre, Rishton, confirming that for over 10 years they have worked with LHF with a range of disadvantaged/disaffected young people, particularly those with emotional problems.  A letter from the British Horse Society confirming that since its establishment LHF has been a BHS Approved Riding Establishment. For the last 12 years, adults and children with disabilities and from disadvantaged backgrounds and able-bodied individuals have been able to learn to ride on an ongoing basis, and for the past 14 years, LHF has hosted training events for the BHS and Pony Club.  A certificate issued by the British Horse Society, which is a BHS Silver Award in recognition of support for young riders. The certificate, dated 8.11.2006, states that “Mary Walker, the proprietor and manager of LHF, has for over 12 years provided the opportunity for anyone with a need or disadvantage in life to experience the benefits of getting close to nature, horses and other animals. This has helped develop quality of life, confidence and self-esteem and ultimately the social and practical skills many youngsters miss out on. LHF in Lancashire is a registered charity and a unique and innovative specialist centre, offering a wide range of educational and therapeutic activities to the whole community. It has always been a BHS approved establishment and has expanded to include animal therapy, horticulture and environmental activities, to a range of disadvantaged or disabled children and adults.”  A letter confirming that the writer was employed by the applicants as a qualified riding instructor for approximately 5 years, throughout which she taught able-bodied clients as well as disabled clients.  2 letters confirming that the writers had riding lessons and exercised the horses as able- bodied riders at LHF for several years, continuously from 1994 in one case.  10 undated press cuttings indicating the range of activities available at LHF to both the disabled and able-bodied.  An extract from a guidance note on Certificates of Lawfulness issued by the Country Land and Business Association, which highlights that in respect of operational development no enforcement action can be taken after a period of 4 years has elapsed since the development was substantially completed, and in respect of any other breach of planning control (including change of use, additional use or breach of condition) no enforcement action can be taken after a period of 10 years has elapsed, commencing from the date of the breach. The note also states that where it can be shown that the use, operations or other matter

6 subsisted for the requisite period of time, the local planning authority must issue a certificate, and there is no discretion available to the authority in this matter.

The legal advice provided by the Council’s Solicitor is as follows:  In order to obtain a Certificate of Lawfulness, the applicant is required to demonstrate that on a balance of probability the use that is subject of the application has been carried out as a primary use in itself for a continuous period of 10 years.  The substance of the application is that the restriction on the use of the facilities at LHF by disabled persons only has been consistently ignored since 1993.  The term “disability” should be construed in accordance with the definition contained in the Disability Discrimination Act which provides that a disabled person is one who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day to day activities. The term disadvantaged is not clearly defined, but given the potentially wide ranging scope of the DDA some of the people described in the application could actually be defined as disabled. An appropriate test for people described as disadvantaged could be those referred by statutory or voluntary agencies.  In order to prove that a use in planning terms has been carried out in breach of the conditions, the applicant must show that the unauthorised use could have been subject to enforcement action before expiry of the specified limitation period.  He can accept the applicant’s claim that the work of the charity has been extended to a wide range of disadvantaged persons, but questions whether the provision of facilities to the non- disabled/non-disadvantaged is anything more than an ancillary activity to the main purpose of the Charity.  The LHF charity accounts 2003-2005 indicate that the activities giving rise to donations (for riding lessons by the able bodied community) rose slightly from approximately 25% to 33% over the period. However, these accounts are inconclusive since they do not show how much of the activities that generated donations were in the nature of ancillary activities to the provision of riding for the disabled/disadvantaged.  The supporting letters submitted by organisations and individuals either do not provide evidence of the extent of use by non-disabled/non-disadvantaged participants, or indicate that the provision of facilities to the able bodied was at least in the early years of the 10 year period, and remains, ancillary to the primary use of providing facilities for the disabled/disadvantaged. Other letters do not provide information of value in supporting the case.  The letters of objection submitted by the occupiers of Close Nook Cottage (which is located at the junction of Wilpshire Road and the access road to LHF) are quite helpful in giving an indication as to level of usage. They confirm that disabled riding has taken place for 11 years, and state that there has been a significant increase in traffic over the last 5 years. Other letters do not provide information of value to the case.  Having assessed the information available, it is his opinion that, on the balance of probabilities, the applicant has made a case that the riding facilities at LHF have been made available to some people who may be described as disadvantaged and to people who are non-disabled/non-disadvantaged over a period of 10 years. This opinion is based on the evidence provided by the voluntary groups that work with such people. On the other hand, he is not satisfied that the use of these facilities by the non-disabled/non-disadvantaged has been continuous for a period of 10 years as a primary use and is at best ancillary to the provision of facilities to the disabled/disadvantaged.

7 Planning permission 11/93/0398 allowed the additional use of stables and land for riding for the disabled, and planning permission 11/94/0086 allowed the formation of a riding arena. Both permissions were subject to a condition which limits the permission to “horse riding by the disabled only, and no other riding activities are permitted by this consent”. The reason for the imposition of the condition in both cases was “For the avoidance of doubt, and to ensure that the scale of the use is acceptable in this location”.

In determining this application for a Certificate of Lawfulness, the Council cannot consider the merits of the use of the premises. The issue for consideration is whether the information submitted by the applicant provides adequate evidence that the conditions imposed on planning permission 11/93/0398 and on planning permission 11/94/0086, which restrict the use of the stables, land and riding arena to riding for the disabled and no other riding activities, have been breached for more than 10 years and the continuation of the use of the site unfettered by restrictions, is therefore lawful.

The Council’s Solicitor is satisfied that on the evidence submitted, the applicant has made a case that the conditions have been breached by the use of the facilities by customers other than solely the disabled. He accepts that the facilities have been used over the last 10 years not only by the disabled, but also by people who are disadvantaged (having been referred by statutory/voluntary agencies) and also by people who are not disabled or disadvantaged, the proportion of the latter group being no greater than 10%.

However, the Solicitor’s view is that the applicant has not made a satisfactory case to prove that the use of the facilities by non-disabled/non-disadvantaged people has been carried out as a primary use. The use of the facilities by such people is not considered to have been carried out at sufficient level and for a sufficient period of time to be regarded as a primary use. Instead, use by such persons must be regarded as an ancillary use to the provision of facilities for the disabled/disadvantaged.

Recommendation

Approve as follows:

1. The facilities at Lords House Farm approved under planning permissions 11/93/0398 and 11/94/0086 have been used for more than 10 years by customers who are either disabled, or are disadvantaged and have been referred by statutory/voluntary agencies as a primary use the proportion of such users representing 90% of the total number of customer. The lawful use includes an ancillary use for riding by non-disabled or non-disadvantaged persons, who do not comprise more then 10% of customers.

Supplementary Note

A certificate of lawfulness has been refused for use of the facilities at Lords House Farm approved under 11/93/0398 and 11/94/0084 by customers who are non-disabled and non-disadvantaged as a primary use. ______

8 11/07/0350 Land south of the former Huncoat Power Station off Lowergate Road Accrington Outline application: Employment development B1, B2 and B8 uses 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, assort 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 Townley 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 committee 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 indicative master plan identifies a total of 23,975m2 gross floor area across the development but the details of such buildings would necessarily be the subject of a subsequent more detailed application. Access to the site has been considered across a number of modes; details in the master plan 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 off the forthcoming link road from A679 Burnley Road approved as part of the Lancashire County Council Waste Transfer development for the main Power Station site.

Planning history

The site has no planning history. The County Council granted planning permission for the development of a Waste Management Facility on the site of the former power station (11/05/0535) on the 20th July 2006.

9 Consultations

Because of the major nature of these proposals a local exhibition of the scheme was undertaken by the applicant and in addition the council consulted immediate neighbours by letter (including a re- consultation following amendments to the scheme) as well as displaying site notices and publishing a press notice. Statutory consultees were also fully consulted.

103 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.  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 grasslands and water habitats.  The proposal will affect local rights of way.  Increase in noise and air pollution.  The site was only allocated as employment land as a sweetener to assure development of the power station site.  No need for further commercial development in the area.  The status of the site should be reconsidered pending the forthcoming Local Development Framework  That given the position of the pylons, the greenbelt and the proposed access point a satisfactory distance between properties on Grime Row and the proposed road could not be achieved.

A petition in objection to the development was also received containing 645 names raising the following matters (because of the size of the petition it is not copied with the agenda but may be inspected at the Planning Office):

 Loss of, and impact on, Green belt.  Loss of Wildlife Habitats.  That the proposal is not in accord with Council policy.  Loss of amenity value.  Loss of Greenspace.  Lack of balance and impact of industrialisation in Huncoat.

A letter of objection was also received from Huncoat Area Forum group siting the following issues relating to this proposal:

 That the Local Plan is out of date.  That the employment land allocation should be reconsidered, particularly in the light of the Waste Transfer Stations approval.

A number of comprehensive submissions were made by representatives of Hyndburn Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) which detailed the following concerns:

10  Loss of Greenbelt.  Visual intrusion on the Greenbelt is unacceptable.  Loss of air quality associated with traffic.  Loss of archaeological deposits at Brown Moor Farm.  That the site does not accord with the development plan including Local Plan Policies S1, S5, I1, I2, I6, E3, and L1, Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Policies 5, 6, 20, and 21, and is not supported by PPS1, PPG2, PPS7, PPG13, PPS23 and PPG24.  That the Transport assessment is flawed.  That the air quality assessment is flawed.  That the Culture and Heritage assessment is not robust enough.  That the visuals supplied are misleading.

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, noting that the proposal ‘will assist the 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 Lancashire 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 raised a number of concerns 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.

Highways Agency: Upon receiving the application the Highways Agency issued a Direction requiring that the application must not be found in the applicant’s favour until such time as they were satisfied there would be no undue impacts upon the surrounding highway network. The Agency having now requested and received supplementary information from the applicant is satisfied that there would be no unacceptable impacts upon the surrounding network.

Environment Agency: The Environment Agency initially objected to the proposal however later withdrew their objection on receipt of further contaminated land information submitted by the

11 developer. Consequently they raised no objection 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.

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.

North West Regional Development Agency: Chose not to comment.

Relevant Policies

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Saved Local Plan Policies S1, E10, I1, I6, T1, and T5

Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Policy 14 Industrial land provision

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

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 green belt except for a small area to the east required to provide access to the site. Green belt is a distinct policy allocation the implications of which are dealt with later in this report. The major part of the site rather than being Green belt is in fact identified within the local plan as appropriate for employment uses – a significant part of a package of employment land allocations detailed under policy I1 of the local plan. Such 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 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 which will enable work on this proposal to continue, but should not be misunderstood as a fully detailed application on which all matters are for consideration. The issues for consideration 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 master plan 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.

12

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. This view is supported Government Office North West’s recent confirmation that policies S1, E10, I1, I6, T1, and T5 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 proposed development falls within an area allocated in the Proposals Map of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan and Policy I1 of the plan as suitable for employment development. The Joint Lancashire Structure Plan identifies 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. Policy I6 adds clarity to such allocations by identifying that where such proposals have a significant impact on adjoining land, significant mitigation in the form of landscaping and buffer zones may be required. While not part of this current outline application significant structural planting is proposed and the proposals give significant scope for this policy to be satisfied as part of a reserved matters application and to achieve an overall scheme which would wholly comply with the Council’s ambitions to achieve acceptable standards of design and amenity. This approach is supported by the Head of Environmental Health who, despite identifying that the noise impact assessment initially submitted with the application was not satisfactory, has chosen not to object on the basis that such matters could be adequately resolved in a future more detailed application.

On the matter of landscaping it is clear from the indicative master plan 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. To that end the indicative master plan identifies 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. As such I would consider that Policy I1 gives significant support to this application and that Policy I6 would prove no impediment to the approval of this application. Consequently I would advise that any refusal based solely on the principal of employment development could not be justified. Furthermore and with particular regard to a number of objections received which raised need for this development as an issue, I would advise 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.

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

13 cuts a swath through the greenbelt but was ultimately was considered acceptable by Lancashire County Council as the development which it 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 apart from indicating an increased patronage of that forthcoming road requires a new branch section to serve the site directly. Although not wholly within the Greenbelt this access road does require some impingement upon such land. About 3484m2 of Green belt allocated land would be required to enable access to this site but the majority would be landscaping and only 730m2 (approximately 1 fifth of a football pitch) would be road. Notwithstanding this small infringement Local Plan Policy S1 and Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG 2) necessarily apply. Between them these documents require that for any development to be approved on Green belt land very special circumstances must be demonstrated to exist which necessitate the development. 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 before 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, namely 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. As such the imperative to develop sufficient employment land generates a particularly special circumstance, in this case realised in the form of a projected 600 jobs. 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.

In addition, in line with 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 road is the only remaining alternative. 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 own assessment would concur with this approach. 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. That 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

14 advise that considering the limited amount of Greenbelt land involved an adequate argument has been put forward to demonstrate very special circumstances.

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 there within are not subject to the committee’s consideration today. In particular the siting and design of buildings which has attracted numerous objections, 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.

A number of issues have been raised in relation to the acceptability of transport surrounding the application and in particular with regard to the acceptability of the Transport Assessment. On this matter I would advise that 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 I can advise that the Highways Agency took considerable time to allow there own agents to thoroughly assess the detail of the proposal and found no cause to object. Consequently I would not advise that a refusal on the grounds of highway impact could 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, in particular by rail, bus, cycle and foot. To this extent the developer has agreed in principle to enter a Section 106 Agreements to contribute financially towards the provision of the following items: upgrade of bus stops on Station Road, a deep clean of Huncoat rail station and replacement of signage, provision of a cycle lane along Altham Lane, improvements to the bridleway/cycleway along the canal as well as the provision of an open space area adjacent to Lowergate Road and immediately adjacent to the development to facilitate pedestrian access to the site. In addition the developer has committed to provide funding to enable the monitoring of habitats adjacent to and within the scheme.

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.

15 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)

Conditions to follow.

Informative Note(s)

______

11/07/0648 Land adjacent No. 11 Bridge Houses Baxenden Accrington BB5 2RS Erection of open sided shelter (Retrospective) Mr S & Ms K Fenwick

Site description and locality

The application site is located between two sets of terraced cottages known as Bridge Houses and Alma Place respectively and found adjacent to the former Baxenden railway line. A 2002 planning permission gave right to use this land as an all-weather riding area. However recently a shelter has been erected without the necessary consent. The land is characterised by the riding area and the surrounding green belt countryside.

Details of proposal

The applicant seeks to establish the necessary permission to retain the shelter. The shelter itself is open sided and constructed with timber poles and corrugated roof.

Planning history

11/02/0410 Change of use of land to form all-weather riding area. Approved conditionally 19.09.2002

Consultations

Neighbours were consulted by letter and two letters were received in reply objecting to the development. The letters raise the following concerns.

16  The structure is about 35 feet from our property and the size of the structure will result in loss of views.  The shelter may perpetuate parking issues associated with the riding area and may become used for parking cars.  The shelter will result in a loss of value to adjacent properties.  The shelter is an eyesore.

Relevant Policies

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Policies E10, and S1.

Observations

The applicant seeks to establish permission to retain a timber pole shelter measuring 9m x 5m and constructed at the northern end of an existing horse riding area. The application site is characterised by its rural nature: mature trees, adjacent former railway line and ponds. The whole area benefits from falling within the green belt allocation of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

There are a number of issues relating to this scheme which must be considered by the Council. Firstly, as the structure falls within the green belt, Policy S1 of the Local Plan applies and stipulates that unless proposed in association specific uses all developments must demonstrate very special circumstances to be permissible. The applicant advises that the shelter is constructed in relation to outdoor recreation and specifically to allow a dry area for horses in inclement weather. I feel that the timber pole and corrugated roofed structure is sufficiently rural/agricultural in character, and related to recreational use, to satisfy the requirements of Policy S1 and E10 in terms of being sympathetic to the surrounding vernacular. Consequently I consider that the proposal is a satisfactory form of development within the Green Belt and conforms to Policies S1 and E10.

Two letters of objection has been submitted in relation to this development and raise a number of concerns. Firstly the objector argues that the size of the structure will result in loss of views and that, as such, the shelter will result in a loss of value to adjacent properties. Members will be aware that the planning process should not consider such issues in the proper determination of applications.

The objector suggests that the shelter may perpetuate parking issues associated with the riding area. Although the council will be mindful any approval granted here should not exacerbate inappropriate activity within rural areas, I would suggest that the concerns raised by the objector could satisfactorily be controlled by the imposition of a condition restricting the use of the shelter to that associated with the riding area and specifically the sheltering of horses and no other use.

Consequently I do not consider that there exist sufficient grounds for refusal of this proposal.

Recommendation

Approve subject to the following conditions:

17 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 The shelter hereby approved shall be used solely for the purpose of sheltering horses or other uses incidental to the use of the adjoining all-weather riding area and for no other purpose.

Reason: To ensure that all activity undertaken is necessarily related to the existing outdoor recreation activity on the site and in order to comply with Policy S1 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 S1 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:

(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.

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.

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.

18 (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.

______

11/07/0654 Land at Pollard Street Accrington Outline Application: Erection of 8 No. dwellings Mr J Parkinson

Site description and locality

The application site is currently a garage/wasteland site bounded by the Accrington to Colne railway line to the south-east and Pollard Street to the north-west. It includes the land running from the Meadow Top Bridge at its eastern boundary to the land adjacent to No 4 Pollard Street in the west. The site does not include the detached garden area opposite No 3 Pollard Street.

The area is generally residential in character with St Joseph’s Church and presbytery on the opposite, northern side of Pollard Street, which in this location is unmade.

Details of proposal

The applicant seeks to establish the principal of developing 8 dwellings on the land with this outline application and has detailed layout and access for approval in this application. Scale, appearance and landscaping are reserved for future approval.

Three pairs of semi-detached houses are proposed, each with its own access to Pollard Street, private garden area and parking space.

Planning history

There are a number of relevant applications in the past which have successfully established this site as appropriate for residential use. Most recently however an outline application was refused on the grounds that it did not comply with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on New Residential Developments and poor design.

11/03/0313 Outline application for residential development of 12, 3-storey town houses. Refused. 25.07.03. 11/99/0378 Outline application for residential development . Approved conditionally 01.11.99. 11/88/0227 Outline application for residential development. Approved conditionally 31.10.88.

Consultations

Head of Environmental Health: Informative Note regarding contamination issues. Highway Authority (Lancashire County Council): Units need to be relocated to allow for the making up of a section of Pollard Street with footpaths.

19 Neighbours were consulted by letter and site notices were displayed. 5 letters were received in reply – four letters of support, and one objection. The following observations were made:

Objections  Loss of parking provision in the area would create parking problems.  Some of the land is owned by Salford RC Diocese.  Consideration should be made to prevent rat running down Owen Street, Pollard Street and Belgarth Road.  The proposal could perpetuate congestion and inappropriate parking in an already sensitive area.  Footpath provision should be made.  3 storey houses would not be welcome.  The site is contaminated and such issues will need to be addressed.

Supports  Something must be done with this land which is an eyesore.  The proposed houses are not too close to existing residential properties or likely to create any issues of overlooking.  The use of neglected brownfield sites such as this for housing should be encouraged.  Overdevelopment of this area should be avoided, but 8 units seem acceptable.  Pollard Street and Belgarth Road should be adopted if this scheme is approved.

Relevant policies

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Policy E10 - Development policies Policy H2 – Housing infill Supplementary Planning Guidance – New Residential Development.

Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Policy 12 – Housing

Observations

The application seeks a principal consent to erect 8 semi-detached dwellings on a currently disused garage site with a long history of environmental blight. The site is bounded by Pollard Street to the north-west and the Accrington to Colne railway line to the south-east of the site. The land is characterised by an untended appearance, the remnants of garages and a number of remaining structures running east to west and facing Pollard Street. Approximately half-way along, and to the north of the application site, a small detached garden area relating to No 3 Pollard Street will remain. Access to the properties would be arranged by a number of driveways from Pollard Street and the properties would each benefit from a private garden area.

The site has a significant planning history which, despite the most recent refusal, clearly establishes this as a site appropriate for some form of residential development. The policy grounds upon which the most recent refusal was based have now substantially altered upon the introduction of further exceptions to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on New Residential Development in the Borough on 10th July 2006. The additional exceptions added to the SPG could be argued to

20 support this proposal on two counts. Firstly the majority of the site is within 300m of the Accrington town centre allowing its development to assist in the enhancement of Accrington’s vitality and viability and secondly a clear and well documented history of environmental blight and dereliction has been demonstrated by the applicant. The second of these arguments has been strongly supported by comments received through public consultation. While to have a significant impact on vitality and viability it is generally considered that a minimum of 10 residential units would be required, I feel that the site can clearly be considered as derelict. Consequently I would advise that on SPG grounds the site could be considered an acceptable location for residential development.

Consequently it remains for the committee to consider the details of the matters proposed for approval including any impact on residential or visual amenity or highway safety. The applicant seeks to establish eight units on this plot and has shown access arrangements and the siting of the properties within the scheme. In terms of the siting I would advise that by and large adequate distances have been maintained within the scheme and that any privacy and overlooking issues which may have been created by the incorporation of the existing detached garden have been well considered and responded to. There is no adverse impact between any of the proposed dwellings and existing dwellings surrounding the site although the distances between two of the proposed blocks is marginally below the preferred standard of 15m. The letters received from the public raised no concern over these matters and as such I would consider that the proposed siting is acceptable.

Access to the site has been arranged via a number of driveways along Pollard Street. The proposed access arrangements raise no undue planning issues and drew no objection from members of the public or the highway authority, although the highway authority did require the amendment of the boundaries of one of the plots to allow the possible future adoption of part of Pollard Street. The eastern section of Pollard Street, which is currently unmade, will need to be made up to adoption standards with a new footpath on the southern side.

With regard to the public consultation a number of respondents suggested that parking may be a concern in relation to this development. However, the proposed site layout provides a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces per unit and as such should not unacceptably perpetuate any parking or congestion issues. The highway authority has not objected to the proposal in terms of lack of parking. In terms of the possibility of the retention of the site for parking/garage use I would suggest that such a proposal would not be a realistic proposition and may not adequately address the environmental issues associated with the site. Such suggestion should not be considered to weigh heavily against the proposal currently under consideration.

One objector has suggested that the land may be contaminated and that proper investigation would be required. These comments accord with those received from the Head of Environmental Health which would require by condition that the developer submits a site investigation and implements any mitigation measures prior to development.

Issues relating to design, height and external appearance of the buildings themselves, and landscaping including, the provision of footpaths, within the site will necessarily be the subject of a reserved matters application.

Consequently with proper regard to the above issues I would recommend that there are no significant considerations which should weigh against this proposal and as such would advise the application be approved.

21

Recommendation

Approved subject to the following conditions:

Condition(s) and Reason(s)

1 Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning on the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the 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.

2 Before any development is commenced written approval shall be obtained from the local planning authority in respect of the reserved matters, namely, the scale and appearance of the buildings 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.

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.

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 Notwithstanding Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 no development shall take place within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved in accordance with Classes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, or H of part 1 of Schedule 2, unless a planning application for that development has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: In order to prevent the over development of this restricted site and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan .

22 6 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until the application site has been subjected to a detailed investigation and recording of all potential contamination. The proposed methodology of the survey shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any work commences. The findings of the survey shall be submitted to the local planning authority, together with full details of any de-contamination work proposed to deal with any contamination found by the survey. No work shall commence on site until all work to secure the de-contamination of the site to a condition suitable for its future use has been carried out to the satisfaction of the local planning authority and confirmed in writing as being completed.

Reason: To safeguard the health of the future occupants of the land in the interests of public health and in order to comply with Policies E2, E10 and E13 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

7 None of dwellings No 5, 6, 7 or 8 shall be occupied until the section of Pollard Street hatched green on the approved plan has been made up to adoption standards with a footpath on its south- eastern side.

Reason: To ensure that suitable access is available to Units 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety 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 Policies E10 and H2 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan, the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on New Residential Developments in the Borough and the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Policy 12. 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:

(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.

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.

23 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.

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.

______

11/07/0665 Greycroft Residential Home 15 Queens Road Accrington BB5 6AR Demolition of rear single storey extension and erection of single storey and two-storey rear extensions and extension to conservatory at side Helen Quickmore

Site description and locality

Located in a well established residential area the application site consists of an imposing Victorian house on a corner plot at the junction of Queens Road and Haywood Road with mature gardens close to Accrington Victoria Hospital. The building has been used for some time as a residential home for the elderly and benefits from a side facing conservatory and single storey rear extension.

Details of proposal

The applicant seeks to demolish the existing single storey rear extension and develop a part two- storey, part single storey replacement to a similar, but slightly larger, footprint. In addition the applicant seeks a small extension to an existing side facing conservatory. The extensions proposed would allow for two additional bedrooms, a kitchen extension and the installation of a lift. Although the proposal will introduce an extended first floor this element is limited and would not project beyond the existing rear wall at first floor of the original building. Five car parking spaces are to be provided in a re-arranged parking area. Materials proposed are to match the existing building.

Planning history

11/84/0637 Change of use from dwelling to rest home for the elderly. Conditional approval 17/1/85 11/85/0518 Erection of bedroom, bathroom and laundry room extension. Approved conditionally 28/11/85

24 11/90/0615 Erection of conservatory. Approved unconditionally 28/11/90 Erection of Perspex cover to passageway. Approved conditionally 10/11/92 Erection of first floor extension to accommodate lift. Approved conditionally 28/3/03. Not implemented.

Consultations

Highway authority (Lancashire County Council): No objections. Informative Note regarding footpath crossing.

Neighbours were consulted by letter and 2 letters were received in reply objecting to the proposals and raising the following concerns:

 Negative impact on visual amenity.  Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.  Traffic hazards during construction phase.  Potential noise pollution.  Loss of light to neighbouring properties which will limit the use of garden areas.

Relevant policies

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Policy E10 – Development Policies Policy H8 and Appendix Five – Care Homes

Observations

The applicant seeks permission to make significant alterations and extensions to the rear and side of an existing care home in an established residential area. The proposed extensions would allow for the extension of the conservatory overlooking Haywood Road, creation of improved kitchen, provision of two additional bedrooms and the installation of a lift. The applicant argues that the extensions are necessitated by legal requirements placed upon modern care homes and in order to secure the ongoing viability of the business. As stated elsewhere the layout proposed stays primarily within the foot print of the existing single storey extension which is to be demolished other than for a small area of the proposed kitchen extension and an extension to provide an en- suite facility. The development is intended to be completed in matching materials and some time has been taken to ensure that the proposed elevations reflect the character of the existing home.

Local residents have been consulted on the proposal and a number of concerns have been raised. Principally the objections have been raised in relation to the scale of the development and how this may impact upon neighbours’ amenity. Objectors have cited a number of issues including the impact on privacy, light and visual amenity. These issues are among those cited under Policy H8 and Appendix Five of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan and I shall deal with each in turn.

Firstly it is argued that the proposal should be refused on the grounds that the resultant structure would unacceptably impact upon the privacy of neighbours. Although there will be some impact the resultant situation would not, in my view, be significantly worse than at present. Because at ground floor the majority of the development would occur within the existing foot print, any impact which will be created will primarily be a result of the new first floor extension. Because this would remain within the existing thresholds of the rearward building line at first floor I would suggest that

25 any resultant windows would not be any less acceptable than those on the existing building. As such I would not advise that a refusal on these grounds could be supported.

In terms of light I consider that the impact would be minimal. Although the proposed first floor extension is close to the eastern boundary of the property neighbours to the east, because of the relationship between the two buildings, would be more readily affected by the existing structure blocking light than the proposed extensions. Equally because the proposal does not result in any significant eastward extension, rear elevations on Lime Road would not suffer the loss of any light. Consequently I would not consider the loss of light to neighbours’ properties an adequate reason for refusal in this instance.

With regard to the design of the proposed extension I believe that the character of the existing building has been respected in both the use of materials and the general arrangement of fenestration and features within the proposed extension. Consequently the character and general amenities of the area should not be adversely impacted by this proposal. As such I would consider that the proposal should not be refused on design or visual amenity grounds.

A single objector has also raised a concern relating to noise pollution associated with the operation of the care home. My own observation would suggest that the additional two beds should not represent an unacceptable increase in activity on the site particularly considering that even when completed the home would essentially be no closer to residential properties than the existing arrangement.

In relation to highway issues the highway authority has raised no objections but have advised that as development makes it necessary to execute works for the construction of a vehicle crossing over a kerbed footway of Haywood Road which is a highway maintainable at the public expense. The works must be specified by and carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Highway Authority.

I consider that the proposals are significantly contrary to Council policy as set out in Policy H8 and Appendix Five of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan and I would recommend that the application be approved with conditions.

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.

26 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the amended plan (INSERT PLAN NUMBER) received on (INSERT DATE).

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 H8 and E10, and Appendix Five 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:

(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.

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.

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.

27 (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.

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.

5 The formation of the site access makes it necessary to execute works for the construction of a vehicle crossing over a kerbed footway which is a highway maintainable at the public expense. These highway works must be specified by, and carried out in accordance with the requirements of, the Highway Authority. Before the works can be started the developer must contact the Highway Authority, Lancashire County Council, Willows Lane Depot, Accrington, BB5 0RT. The cost of the works will be charged to the developer.

______

11/07/0669 210 - 212 Blackburn Road Accrington BB5 0AQ Installation of new shop front with single storey front extension, roller shutters to front, security grills to side elevation and provision of car parking at front Mr Z Iqbal

Site description and locality

The application property is situated on the north side of Blackburn Road, Accrington at its junction with Lister Street at the end of a row of mainly terraced houses on this main road frontage. The property was formerly a public house and is currently in the process of being converted into shop premises. The area is generally a mixture of commercial and residential properties and the site is within the urban area.

Details of proposal

The installation of a new aluminium shop front by the removal of existing two domestic windows to No. 212 Blackburn Road and 3 windows to No. 210 Blackburn Road. The existing domestic door to No. 212 is to remain. A small single storey extension is proposed to the front of No. 212 to bring it level with the front elevation of No. 210. The extension is to be 0.7 metre long by 5.3 metres wide with a sloping roof finished with slate. The scheme also includes the installation of internally fitted security shutter box and shutters to front elevation and security grills to the side windows.

The proposal also includes a car park for 2 cars on the forecourt of the premises accessed from Lister Street.

28 A Design and Access Statement has been supplied in support of this application.

Planning history

11/97/0072 Erection of detached double garage – approved conditionally 7.8.97 11/94/0188 Installation of bay window – approved conditionally 11/90/0187 Display of externally illuminated pole sign – approved conditionally 11/87/0383 Display of internally illuminated projecting box sign – refused 11/85/0464 Change of use from working men’s club to public house

Consultations

Lancashire County Council (Highways) – No objections subject to informative note relating to vehicular crossing and condition relating to the installation of bollards. Head of Environmental Health – Requires a condition to ensure the installation of a gas proof membrane into the foundations of the proposed extension.

Site notice and neighbours notified – 1 letter received from the adjoining neighbour making the following comments:  I am somewhat concerned at this proposal. The property is located on a very busy main road, is within 25 m of a bus stop and pelican crossing and is on the corner of Lister Street. The footpath can be very busy at times, especially from the nearby mosque and yet the proposal is for cars using the proposed car park, to turn on and off the road, on or around the existing junction with Lister Street (the top end of which is used by visitors to the Post Office across the road for short term parking) and the bus stop already causes traffic to often back up along the road in front of the property. The proposal also requires cars to park side on to the shop front and therefore cross immediately in front of the entrance to the shop, which is also to be used for disabled access. I consider the proposal an unnecessary hazard to pedestrians and shop users.  The access statement attached to the application states that parking is required for employees and two customers, with access for disabled use and deliveries. This can be achieved by the area to the rear of the property, which already has designated off-road parking space for up to four vehicles. This area provides a route to the front of the building for disabled access and would only require co-ordination of deliveries with the employee parking. In addition there is on-street parking available to the side of the building on Lister Street.  In addition to the above I would be concerned at the provision of parking so close to my front door and the affect of possible exhaust fumes and so forth. I note that there appears to be no provision to improve on the low stone and pre-cast wall that separates the boundary of the two properties at the front, or what the treatment would be, where this boundary is affected by the new extension.  Single storey extension. I would like more details of exactly how this would be tied into the wall immediately adjacent to the door to my property and how the construction of the extension may impact on access and egress to and from my property during the construction period. The wall between the existing front doors of the two properties where the new extension is to tie into, is formed by two back to back stone jambs.

Relevant policy

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan

29 E10 Development criteria R7 Shop fronts

Observations

The change of use of these premises from a public house to a retail shop does not require planning permission. However, as part of alterations to convert the premises the applicant proposes the installation of a new shop front. The existing premises comprise a former dwelling (No. 212 Blackburn Road), which was part of the public house and still has the original existing front door and windows, and the public house which has three windows inserted at ground floor level on the front elevation (No. 210 Blackburn Road). The front elevation of No. 210 Blackburn Road is set approximately 0.7 metre in front of the No. 212 elevation and therefore a small front single storey extension is proposed to No.212 to bring the front elevations level.

The original application sought permission for the installation of a shop front spanning the full frontage of the two premises. This was considered to be unsatisfactory in terms of design as it proposed the removal of existing architectural details and the creation of a shop front with one long fascia, no pilasters or stall risers. Whilst I have no objections to the installation of the shop front there are two issues which made this proposal unacceptable. Firstly the scheme required the removal of existing architectural features with the loss of an existing door, with architectural detailing. The applicant’s agent was advised on a design which would be acceptable. However, the applicant was unhappy with the suggested revision and a compromise has been reached whereby the existing doorway is retained and formed into a window. The neighbour who lives at No 214 is concerned about the relationship between the proposed extension and his doorway. The extension will not now cover the doorway and will leave the original door in place.

In addition to the above there is also concern about the proposed design of the shop front. Adaptation of shop premises, new signs and new frontage are clearly necessary for modern retailing requirements. However, unless alterations are made carefully and thoughtfully the attractive appearance and architectural quality of many of these properties will become lost behind large illuminated signs, unsympathetic window designs and excessively long fascia boards. In this case it was proposed that the two premises be linked together with one long continuous facia board with no pilasters or consoles to sub-divide the two frontages. It has been Council policy for many years that where a long shop frontage is proposed which will link two or more individual traditional shop premises the design of the ground floor elevation and the facia sign should be such as to retain the appearance of a series of individual units. Conformity and linkage can be satisfactorily obtained by continuity of letter style, design and colour. The original scheme has now been amended to sub- divide the frontage and to provide stall risers to the shop windows which I now consider to the acceptable. The internally fitted roller shutter box and roller shutters are acceptable in terms of policy and a condition can be attached to a permission requiring that the shutters are of appropriate design and colour.

Objections have been raised by the neighbour relating to the parking provision on the forecourt of the shop premises. This element of the scheme has now been amended in the light of the objection from Lancashire County Council. They considered that as there have been four personal injury accidents in the immediate vicinity in the last 5 years the proposed frontage parking accessed direct from Blackburn Road would add to the risk and would not be acceptable on road safety grounds. The application has now been amended to provide vehicular access from Lister Street and Lancashire County Council are satisfied that this is acceptable.

30 Due to the amendments which have improved the design of the shop front, the retention of some of the original features and the amendments to the forecourt car parking I now consider that the application 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 facing materials to be used in the construction of the extension hereby approved shall be render to match in colour and texture that 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 roofing materials to be used in the construction of the extension hereby approved shall be slate to 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

5 The shutters/shutter box/shutter guides 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 and the Council's adopted Policy on The Security of Retail and Other Commercial Premises.

31 6 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.

7 The parking area to the front of the premises shall be fully operational prior to the opening of the shop. Bollards shall be installed between the car park and the footway on Blackburn Road to present vehicular access direct from Blackburn Road to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. The car park shall be made available at all times that the premises are in use for the parking of staff cars only.

Reason In order to ensure that there is adequate car parking provision clear of the public highway in the interests of the safety of users of the highway and in order to comply with Policies E10 and TR7 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

8 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the amended plans nos. 886, 886/1 received on 27 November, 2007.

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 R7 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:

(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.

32 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.

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.

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.

5 The formation of the site access makes it necessary to execute works for the construction of a vehicle crossing over a kerbed footway which is a highway maintainable at the public expense. These highway works must be specified by, and carried out in accordance with the requirements of, the Highway Authority. Before the works can be started the developer must contact the Highway Authority, Lancashire County Council, Willows Lane Depot, Accrington, BB5 0RT. The cost of the works will be charged to the developer.

______

11/07/0679 103 Willows Lane Accrington BB5 0LN Erection of rear dormer and rear kitchen and bathroom extension (resubmission 11/07/0381) S Yaseen

Site description and locality

This mid-terraced house is situated on the eastern side of Willows Lane, Accrington in an area which is entirely residential in character. The property backs on to another residential terrace which is set at a slight angle to the application property.

Details of proposal

The erection of a single storey rear extension and rear dormer extension. The proposed flat roofed kitchen extension will extend an existing single storey rear extension by a further 3.9 metres long by 3.15 metres wide by 2.8 metres high and faced to match the existing extension. The proposed rear dormer measures approximately 3.6 metres long by 1.4 metres high at its greatest height. The dormer is to be clad in hanging tiles to match the existing roof.

33 Planning history

11/07/0381 – Erection of single storey extension and rear dormer extension – refused 17.7.07

Consultations

Neighbours notified – 1 letter received making the following comments:  My house is directly opposite to 103 Willows Lane (at the back) and I am very concerned as to how much light all this building work will have on the rooms at the back of my house.  I already have a certain amount of light off my living room with the extensions at 99 and 101 Willows Lane.

Relevant policy

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan E10 Scale, density, design

Observations

A previous application for similar single storey rear extension and rear dormer was refused under delegated powers in July 2007 (Application No. 11/07/0381). The application was refused on the grounds that the dormer, because of its size, design and use of materials would be inappropriate and out of character with the existing dwelling and detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. In addition, the kitchen extension had windows in the side elevation which overlooked a neighbour’s property. This current application seeks permission for the erection of a single storey rear kitchen extension with high level windows on the side elevation and a roof light and a dormer extension which has been reduced in height.

The key issues for consideration in this case are the impact on the character and appearance of the property and the area in general, and the impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents.

A neighbour has objected to the proposal on the grounds of loss of light to her rear living room. However, it is not likely that the erection of a single storey rear extension will have any impact on this neighbour as the property is across a back street and some 7 metres away.

I now consider that the dormer is acceptable in terms of design as it has been reduced in size and is similar to many others which have been approved in the borough. The design and appearance of the proposed single storey extension is also acceptable and no longer has an impact on neighbours in terms of overlooking.

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.

34 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 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 facing materials to be used in the construction of the dormer extension hereby approved shall be vertical hung slates to match in colour 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

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 no window(s) or other openings, other than shown on the approved plan, shall be formed in the northern elevation of the kitchen extension without the written permission of the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties 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 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:

(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

35 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.

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.

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.

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.

______

11/07/0686 Land at 309 - 317 Union Road Oswaldtwistle Erection of church and community centre The Christian Institute

Site description and locality

The application site is that of the former Co-op store in the centre of Oswaldtwistle on the south side of Union Road. Now a vacant cleared site, it is bounded by Union Road, Oak Street, John Street and back Union Road and is currently used by shoppers for informal parking provision. The properties on Union Road, in the vicinity of the site, are predominately in commercial use, as is the property to the south of the site across the back street which is a pet warehouse. Properties in Oak Street and John Street are in residential use.

The land is included within the shopping area as shown on the Proposals Map of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

Details of proposal

The erection of a church building with the formation of a car park. The proposal is to develop the site in two phases as funds allow with the first phase providing a building which will provide a 168

36 seat worship area, a foyer and kitchen with two classrooms at ground floor level. Phase two will extend the building westward to provide further facilities which includes a sports hall with rooms above and includes the provision of either photo voltaic panels or solar panels installed on the roof at the rear when Phase 2 is built.

The building is a single storey building with a steeply pitched roof measuring 2.7 metres to the eaves and 8.15 metres to the ridge and is to be faced in natural stone on the front elevation with weathered masonry block to the rear and sides with painted render and feature panel oak boarding.

Five parking spaces are to be provided including 1 disabled parking bay.

A Design and Access Statement has been submitted with the application.

Planning history

11/04/0081 Outline application: erection of new church/community centre – approved conditionally 1.4.04 11/98/0528 Erection of church building with car parking – approved conditionally 3.2.99 11/97/0271 Outline application: erection of church building and formation of car park – approved conditionally 27.8.97 11/94/0611 Renewal of consent for the erection of six retail units – approved conditionally 8.2.95 11/90/0133 Erection of six retail units – approved conditionally 5.4.90 11/88/0625 Outline application for erection of petrol filling station and car wash – refused 21.1.89

Consultations

Lancashire County Council (Highways) – No objection subject to informative note advising not to park within influence of Pelican crossing and closure of adopted back street. Head of Environmental Health – Requires condition relating to gas proof membrane incorporated into foundations. United Utilities – No objections subject to 6 metre easement either side of public sewer which abuts the site.

Site notice and neighbouring properties notified –5 letters received. Two duplicated letters support the proposals. Of the other three letters one objects while two do not object but raise issues concerning parking. The writers make the following comments:

 I am writing in support of the planning application for a church to be built on the land on Union road. I consider that it would be a great asset to the local community and would improve this part of the town.  They have a long history of having children’s activities and offer help and support to all the community.  I am not against the above being built, as when we were young the community centre was a good thing for children, but what I do feel strongly against is the parking situation.  At the minute it is absolutely ridiculous with the pet warehouse being just opposite us, the people that go to the shops, bank etc seem to park in the spare land so what will it be like with something else being built and were will the cars park then.  We have a baby and when we go out and return we can’t even park outside our house, now the darker nights are drawing in as well, we have to park around the corner, my wife has to carry the shopping and the baby from around the corner instead of parking in front of our

37 house. It is getting to where we can’t even move our car at weekends in case we can’t get back in front of our houses.  I don’t mind the church being built across from my house as there is already a big pet shop facing my house.  The only problem I have is with parking! At the moment parking is a nightmare on this street, especially my block, people use our street as a car park to go to pet warehouse and vets, chemist, bank and so on. It is hard sometimes to be able to park on my own block let along outside our own house. If the church does get built then a suitable car parking or parking arrangements would have to be made.  My reason for objection is that I believe there is insufficient parking provided on the plan especially when Phase 2 of the application is built. With only 5 parking spacing being allocated for a potential congregation, wedding, funeral etc of 168 people plus staff, the surrounding streets, already extremely busy with residents vehicles, visitors to the shops and business and additional vehicles who used to park on the site (rightly or wrongly) are going to be chaotic. It is one thing for the church members to say that they will walk to the church as we all know when it is cold or wet people will use their car and park as close as possible to their destination.  The car park behind the surgery on Union Road, which has been earmarked as additional parking for the church will only be available at weekends and is generally busy with local residents’ vehicles. This would not help in cases where services such as weddings and funerals would be held with funeral processions/wedding vehicles either blocking Union Road which has restricted parking, a bus stop and a zebra crossing immediately outside the church’s proposed main entrance, or once again blocking the surrounding streets.  I believe the inability for the public to park in the area will discourage them from using our local shops and businesses and in the long run affect employment and prosperity of Oswaldtwistle.

Relevant policy

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Policy R2 Shopping Areas Policy E10 Scale, density, design

Observations

Members will see from the planning history section of this report that three planning permissions have been granted for the erection of a church on this site, originally in 1997 (Application No. 11/97/0271). All these permissions have now lapsed but the principle of allowing a church on this site is well established. Since the granted of planning permission the Church has been trying to raise sufficient funds to carry out the scheme.

The new proposal seeks to develop the site in two phases with the first phase providing a main multi-use hall which can be rented out for weddings and other community activities. The entrance foyer and kitchen will be used as a drop in facility during the day providing meals for the elderly and be shared with a mums and toddler group. Two classrooms and the foyer will be used by the junior section of the church on Sundays and for special programmes during the school holidays. There is also a rear yard to provide an outdoor play area. The first floor will be a multi-use facility but primarily for use by evening youth groups. Other activities will include aerobics classes, facilities for people with learning difficulties and care groups. Phase 2 will extend the building to

38 provide a dedicated sports hall, enlarged foyer and additional smaller rooms which the church intends to share with other churches and social groups in the area.

The applicant’s are the Christian Institute who formerly occupied Melbourne Street Church which has now been sold to raise the funds for the new building. The original scheme was far grander in scale and design but the costs were far too large for the small congregation and so this revised scheme has been designed. Although the building is a much scaled down and simpler design than that previously approved it is my view that its design, siting and scale are acceptable with the use of natural stone for the front elevation with a slate roof.

Objections to the proposal have been made with regards to parking provision. However, the highway authority has raised no objections to the proposal in terms of parking provision as this is a highly sustainable site for public transport being on a main bus route. The highway authority initially raised concerns relating to the potential for vehicles, particular those serving funerals and weddings, to stop within the range of the Pelican crossing on Union Road adjacent to the site. However, highways engineers are now satisfied that the side door from the car park can be utilised and an informative note can be attached to a permission to advise the applicants to ensure that the side door must be used in conjunction with funerals and weddings.

This is a prominent site on the main road frontage which has been used as an informal car park for many years. There are major advantages in removing this derelict site from Union Road along with the provision of a public building which will benefit the community and therefore I consider that the proposal 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 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details/samples.

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

39

4 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details, including cross- sections, of the window frames and rainwater goods shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

Reason: Inadequate details of these matters have been submitted with this application and in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

5 Prior to the commencement of the work hereby approved a scheme of external timber finishes, including colours as appropriate, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All external timber shall be treated in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved.

Reason: In order to ensure that the works carried out are in keeping with the character of the building and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

6 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.

7 Prior to the commencement of development a satisfactory programmed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented during the first planting season following the completion of development and 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.

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

8 Before the development hereby approved is first brought into use the car parking area as shown on drawing no. 713/6B shall be surfaced and marked out as indicated for Phase 1 on the approved plan to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. Within two years or date of this permission, or a time agreed in writing by the local planning authority, if Phase 2 has not been built then the remainder of the car park shall be surfaced in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The car park shall be made available at all times that the premises are in use for the parking of visitors' cars.

40

Reason In order to ensure a satisfactory form of development and to ensure that there is appropriate car parking provision clear of the public highway in the interests of the safety of users of the highway and in order to comply with Policies E10 and TR7 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

9 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the amended plans nos. 713/6B and 7B received on 28 November 2007.

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 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:

(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.

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.

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.

41 4 John Street and Oak Street are highways maintainable at the public expense and any works which are necessary to close or alter the existing vehicle crossings must be specified by, and carried out in accordance with the requirements of, the Highway Authority, Lancashire County Council, Willows Lane Depot, Willows Lane, Accrington, BB5 0RT

5 The Highway Authority have advised that the sett paved street which is situated within the application site along its south/eastern boundary is a highway maintainable at the public expense. The grant of planning permission does not entitle a developer to stop up, obstruct or divert a highway except in accordance with the relevant and current Order made under the appropriate Act.

6 A public sewer passes through the application site and may be affected by the proposed development. The developer is advised that the grant of planning permission does not entitle a person to erect a building which would affect, or interfere with, access to a public sewer and the applicant(s) attention is brought to the provision of the Building Regulations 2000 regarding "building over" or close to existing sewers. The applicant is advised to consult with the relevant sewerage undertaker, United Utilities.

7 The applicant is advised that the provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990, the Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006 and Regulation (EC) 852/2004 apply. Accordingly the applicant is recommended to make early contact with Environmental Health Services to inform the department of detailed plans for the kitchen layout and how catering operations are to be managed. The Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991 require the proprietor that all new food establishments have to register with the Council not less than 28 days prior to opening. There should be suitable and sufficient accommodation provided at ground level for the reception and storage of waste, including food waste, until it is removed by a licensed waste disposal contractor.

8 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.

______

11/07/0705 Accrington & Rossendale College Sandy Lane Accrington BB5 2AW Formation of loading bay off Oak Lane (Resubmission 11/07/0478) Accrington & Rossendale College

Site description and locality

The application site is a small area of the Accrington and Rossendale College campus between an existing College building and Oak Lane, to the east. Oak Lane itself is a narrow, un-adopted, but

42 well made and maintained, road. On the eastern side of Oak Lane is Heathland School and Nursery.

Details of proposal

The applicant seeks to improve the area between Oak Lane and a college building by allowing vehicles to turn off Oak Lane into a dedicated loading bay area, rather than blocking the lane whilst stopped. The work proposed requires the introduction of balustrade areas and the alteration of levels.

Planning history

The College has in the past few years gone through a significant phase of regeneration resulting in a modern well designed campus as well as a significant number of planning applications.

11/07/0478 Formation of loading bay off Oak Lane approved conditionally 29/8/07. This very similar proposal was approved under delegated powers. However minor changes have resulted in the requirement for this re-submitted proposal.

Consultations

Highway authority (Lancashire County Council): Considers that the loading bay proposals are satisfactory on highway safety grounds.

Neighbours were consulted by letter and one letter was received in reply strongly objecting to the proposals. The letter raised the following concerns:

 Any further traffic on Oak Lane resulting from this proposal would add to already unacceptable highway conditions.  Oak Lane is narrow and has been narrowed further by new lampposts.  That prior planning decisions relating to Oak Lane have been made without consultation with neighbours.

Relevant Policies

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Policy E10. Development Principles.

Observations

The applicant seeks permission to make alterations to an area of land located on the east side of Accrington and Rossendale College on the boundary with Oak Lane. A building access already exists in this location and is used for deliveries, however because of the narrowness of Oak Lane this can result in congestion problems. The proposal would allow for the construction of a more formal area for stopping cars and delivery vehicles. As identified above planning permission has already been granted to a very similar scheme through delegated powers; however minor amendments required by the applicant have resulted in a new application. Despite having been fully advertised and approved, and although the most significant alteration to the scheme is the inclusion of a disabled ramp access from the north, this new application has necessarily been through the same advertisement process again. The application appears before committee because a letter of

43 objection has been received from the school on the opposite, eastern side of Oak Lane. It is notable that the objections to the proposal do not relate specifically to the amended areas of the proposed but rather to the principle in general.

In determining this proposal the main issues for consideration is the overall design of the area as well as being consistent with previously made decision. I consider that this remains an acceptable proposal. The area is already an entrance by which deliveries are received and, as proposed, such deliveries would be made considerably safer. The application identifies that the proposed loading bay will receive one delivery per week and that, because of the increased manoeuvring space, other traffic will be able to pass whilst the delivery is being received. The highway authority raises no objection but noted that the creation of a one-way system on this private road would require the consent of all parties with interests in Oak Lane. Notwithstanding such considerations there is no principle reason why the plans submitted should not be considered acceptable.

One letter of objection has been received citing a number of concerns primarily relating to traffic safety and the narrowness of the lane. In considering such comments I am minded to reiterate highways satisfaction with the scheme and would advise that if implemented and conditioned appropriately the submitted scheme should in fact improve highway safety rather than decrease it.

Finally, the objector refers to discussions between the applicant and the Council regarding the layout and control of car parking and traffic within the campus and in particular on Oak Lane. Members will be aware that the authority’s discussions and decisions in relation to planning matters are made without prejudice to any party’s responsibilities under other legislation. As such private matters, such as land ownership, should not affect the proper determination of this application on its merits. Consequently and in the light of the above arguments I would recommend this 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.

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.

44 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:

(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.

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.

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.

______

11/07/0714 43 Willow Park Oswaldtwistle Accrington BB5 3QY Erection of first floor side extension over existing garage and ground and first floor rear extension Mr A Flatman

Site description and locality

This application relates to a detached house located on the north side of Willow Park, Oswaldtwistle in an area which is wholly residential in character. The properties on this relatively new development are mainly detached houses.

45

Details of proposal

The application seeks permission for the erection of a first floor side extension over an existing double garage and extending into the rear garden supported by a pier to avoid damage to the existing rear garden. The extension is to provide additional bedroom and bathroom facilities with a roof terrace formed over an extended rear porch. The materials are to match the existing house.

Planning history

Nil

Consultations

Neighbours notified – 1 letter received objecting to the proposal and making the following comments:

 The proposal does not make clear that this single storey rear extension is at first floor level and extends approximately 7’6” from the existing garage and is built on a pillar supporting two beams with a void at ground floor level.  The extension over the garage plus this additional extension will give a blank wall about 2 metres from my house in parts, running about 26 feet.  From an aesthetic point of view I would have thought that the roof line over the extension at the front should be pitched at an angle to match the existing slope over the gable end at the other side of the house.  I have seen the plans and told my neighbour of my objection to his proposal. I also told him that I would have had no objection to an extension over his garage on the existing footprint of his building or even extending from the wall of his house over his existing porch but he is not amenable to this.

Relevant policy

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

Observations

The key issues for consideration in this case are the design and appearance of the proposed extension, its impact upon the character of the area, and any impact on neighbouring properties.

The erection of first floor extensions over existing garages is quite common. This scheme is similar in design and appearance to many others which have been approved in the Borough with the exception that in this case the first floor extension extends a further 2.2 metres beyond the rear of the existing attached garage and is supported on brick piers. The applicant has indicated that this was necessary to provide the internal space he requires at first floor level whilst preserving his garden space. The rear extension at first floor level does not extend beyond the rear elevation of the existing dwelling. The proposed extended porch, which will be used as a utility room with balcony above, projects a further 0.8 of a metre.

46 A neighbour has objected to the proposal with particular regard to the length of the proposed extension and its proximity to her property and the design of the roofline. The side elevation of the proposed extension comprises the existing single storey garage with a first floor extension, set back at first floor level from the front elevation by 1 metre, giving a total length of 6.9 metres at first floor level. It is my view that this is not excessive and, whilst the proposed extension above the existing garage is only approximately 1.2 metres from the curtilage of the neighbour’s dwelling, the neighbour has her own garage between the proposed extension and the main gable wall of her house. The gable of the main house, which contains no windows, is approximately 4.9 metres away at its nearest point. In view of this I consider that there is minimal impact on the neighbour. There are no privacy issue relating to the formation of the balcony at first floor level as walls at either side prevent any overlooking.

The objector is also concerned about the shape of the roof line and would prefer it to be a hipped gable rather than a ridged gable. In terms of design the proposal is acceptable and is similar to many others which have been approved in the borough. If there was a major impact on the neighbour from the ridged gable then changes could be sought, however, I do not think it is necessary in this case for the reasons outlined above.

I consider that the design and appearance of the extension is acceptable and that it has no detrimental impact on the character of the area or any adverse impact on neighbours’ amenity.

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

47 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:

(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.

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.

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.

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.

______

48 THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL (Cat A)

11/07/0629 Former Sewage Works Hermitage Street Rishton Use of land to allow Buggy Racing and Military Games in addition to Clay Pigeon Shooting and formation of track for Buggy Racing Mr T E Threlfall

Site description and locality

The site the subject of this application is located on the site of the former Rishton sewage works. The site lies in a valley, bounded to the east by Hyndburn Brook, and is immediately surrounded by open fields. The site is partly wooded and partly open, with areas of hardstanding used for parking. There is a small amenity building at the northern end of the site. Access to the site is along a single track lane leading from Tottleworth Road.

To the east, north-east and south-east, at a higher level, there are residential properties in Clayton- le-Moors, the nearest of which are located 180m from the site boundary. The nearest residential properties to the north-west are located in Tottleworth 550m from the site boundary.

The site lies within the Green Belt as shown in the Proposals Map of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. A small area of woodland at the north eastern corner of the site forms part of a Biological Heritage site.

Details of Proposal

The application seeks permission for the use of land for buggy racing (including the formation of a track) and for military games, in addition to the existing use for clay pigeon shooting. The proposed operating hours are from 10:00 a.m. until 8 p.m. on all days, including public holidays, except on Sundays. Sundays is currently the main day for clay pigeon shooting.

Planning history

11/06/0676 Variation of condition no.3 to allow shooting for up to 4 hours a day from 10.00am onwards Monday to Saturday in addition to the continued use as existing on Sundays. Refused 1. 2. 2007. 11/99/0382 Renewal of consent for clay pigeon shooting and use for additional 10 days per year. Approved conditionally 27.10.1999. 11/98/0284 Renewal of temporary planning permission for clay pigeon shooting on Sundays and 10 additional days per annum. Approved conditionally 5.8.1998. 11/95/0170 Renewal of temporary planning permission for use of land for clay pigeon shooting. Approved conditionally 15.6.1995. 11/92/0298 Renewal of temporary planning permission for use of land for clay pigeon shooting. Approved conditionally 22.6.1992. 11/89/0105 Use of land for clay pigeon shooting. Approved conditionally 22.6.1989.

Consultations

Lancashire County Council (Highways): Objects on road safety grounds.

49 Head of Environmental Health: Noise levels measured indicate only minimal impact on background noise levels which should not have any detrimental effect on the amenity of local residents; conditions required.

Neighbour notification/site notice/press notice/interested parties: I have received a petition bearing 32 signatures (attached at Appendix 1), a letter bearing 7 names, and 42 individual letters of objection, raising the following points:

 The existing use of the land for clay pigeon shooting causes problems for neighbouring residents, and this is another way for the applicant to act as an inconsiderate neighbour, making life unpleasant for neighbouring residents. For the last 20-30 years, the peace of the village has been shattered every Sunday and on 10 other days a year by the sound of gunfire, involving many shots a minute, and neighbours and visitors have put up with the noise but should not be expected to put up with more noisy activities on more days. If they had known about the noise on Sundays they would not have bought the house. There seems to have been an increase in noise nuisance, both in the volume on a Sunday and occasional discharge during the week. The noise of shooting travels widely, particularly when the wind is blowing towards nearby houses. The site is a natural amphitheatre for carrying sound over a long distance to surrounding towns. Noise levels, both inside houses and in gardens, are unacceptable. Residents are entitled to enjoy peace and quiet in their own houses and gardens. Many people work from home or are shift workers and suffer disturbance. Children, including those cared for by a childminder, are frightened by the noise. Residents of a nearby home for the elderly are distressed, at a time when their lives should be made as happy and comfortable as possible. Pets become agitated and dogs bark incessantly. The noise can even be heard in the local church during Sunday services.  These activities will cause even more noise with engines roaring/whining and games participants shouting, for 10 hours per day, including evenings, and the noise would travel widely. The hours proposed are excessive in terms of the number of hours and of days, and are anti-social, seriously impinging on residents’ quality of life. There has already been the sound of engines of a quad bike nature, which has sounded like a single vehicle, but noise levels have been enough to cause inconvenience and much irritation. The noise from several vehicles racing could be excessive. Noise generated by these activities in a small area will affect many people, causing damage to the environment and amenities of the area, and not be “green”. These activities are already available elsewhere and would be more suited to areas where noise levels are already high, such as town centres of industrial areas, or alternatively remote rural areas.  A Cheshire County Council Plan policy states that sites for motorised sporting activities should not be within 400m of a significant number of dwellings, but large areas of Clayton- le-Moors and Tottleworth are within this distance. Two-stroke buggies would be noisy when revving to start, backfiring, racing and approaching humps, and would cause diesel pollution and CO2 emissions, which are damaging to neighbours’ health and to the environment. Although the buggies may be only 250cc or less, the collective noise of a number of them would be disturbing and intolerable. If permitted it may be difficult to remove such inappropriate activity. Others, such as off-road motorcyclists, could use the track with or without the applicant’s consent, and this could be even more noisy. When local police are spending time stopping people riding motorcycles through open fields in the area, it seems nonsensical for the Council to permit noisier buggy racing on a daily basis. A mountain biking track could be considered instead.  Although the guns used may generate less noise than the shotguns used for clay pigeon shooting, there would be more shots fired and returned and by more participants than in clay

50 pigeon shooting. From experience, he knows that there would be very loud shouting of commands, shrieking and other noise from participants. This is not a war zone. Afghanistan and Iraq would be more peaceful. War games would be glorifying gun culture, of which there is already enough in the community. Promotion of violence and guns, even in a “fun” context is not welcome and is an unacceptable role model of behaviour. It is not a healthy form of competition or physical activity, especially if young people were to get involved. There are appropriate professional settings which already offer this activity related to future careers. There have been recent reports of terrorists using the cover of paintballing for military training, and the Council should be very wary of allowing such a possibility within the Borough.  A recent application to extend clay pigeon shooting to include weekdays was sensibly refused. This seems to be a repeat and extension of the previous application, and if approved could lead to longer hours of clay pigeon shooting. Clay pigeon shooting here should be banned altogether. If the previous application was refused, what makes this newer application more acceptable? The applicant could do more to get neighbouring residents on his side, for example by using quieter shotgun cartridges.  Lancashire Rural Futures supported the previous application, describing an already successful rural business. If so, the applicant’s need to diversify isn’t driven by survival, but is a purely monetary-driven exercise, adding revenue for the applicant whilst neighbours gain nothing but nuisance. It would not bring significant employment or add to the area’s economy, only the applicant’s own. The farm is no longer in a rural location, and is within 180m of a large housing estate. Everything the applicant does is viewed and heard by his neighbours, and none of it enhances neighbours’ amenity. The applicant may be trying to improve and make use of the land, but this would not protect or enhance the local area or promote investment and progress in the area. Farmers may need to diversify, but this is the wrong type of development in the wrong area. These would not be amenities for the residents of Clayton-le –Moors, but for the corporate market. It would bring nothing for the local community.  The proposals would not protect and enhance the local environment. The area has many types of birds, including kingfishers and jays, and animals, including deer, some of which are on the endangered species list, and whose environment would be damaged. The fields surrounding the site, separated only by the River Hyndburn, are grazed by many farm animals. Pollution and noise from the activities would affect animals. The site lies within a Wildlife Corridor as shown on the Local Plan Proposals Map. This corridor lies between heavily worked agricultural areas, and the proposals may have a detrimental effect on the movement of wildlife. The wildlife corridor is at present struggling to prosper with the current noise and disturbance, and will be further harmed, particularly by the formation of a racing track. There are also two Biological Heritage sites nearby. The proposals would conflict with Local Plan policies L1, E4, E5 & E10.  The proposed uses are not in keeping with the quiet rural environment and are not appropriate in the Green Belt. Houses around the site have a pleasant outlook over fields and woods, where many people enjoy the peace and tranquillity. A well-used footpath and bridleway runs very close to the site. Tottleworth village is a peaceful hamlet, a Conservation Area with a history dating back 1000 years, surrounded by green fields and woodlands. The Council should review current land uses in this area, with a view to establishing a much more environmentally friendly policy for the area, including improved public access and footpaths. Use as a school-focussed environmental farm, an urban farm, or a social enterprise such as organic farming, vegetable production, bird watching or pond dipping would be more appropriate and would improve the lives of the local community.

51  The access track leading to Tottleworth is a single track lane with bends and only a couple of passing places, used by Tottleworth residents and increasingly by users of the riding stables/livery at Tottleworth, and also by walkers. There are concerns regarding safety and congestion. Access from Tottleworth onto Hermitage Street is currently dangerous due to parking of cars and vans, even on double yellow lines, with a blind exit. This has been reported to the Police, Councils and Parkwise, but nothing has been done. With the increased traffic proposed, it is an accident waiting to happen. Traffic on Hermitage Street on Sundays when the clay pigeon shoot takes place is 75% less than on the weekdays when these activities are proposed. The number of vehicles which would come to the site is unclear, but could be more than suggested in the application, including participants, staff and spectators. The level of traffic, and of air pollution from traffic, in Clayton-le-Moors is already too high, and the proposal can only add to these problems.  Would new buildings and facilities be required? Where would the buggies and equipment (including ammunition?) be stored and how will it be transported to the site. Would changing, washing and toilet facilities be provided?  The proposal detracts from the Green Flag status of Mercer Park. Children using the park are likely to be directly affected by increased traffic volume, road safety issues, noise and pollution from vehicles accessing the site.  It is important for the Borough to have pleasant areas for residents and to attract future residents. The Council should stick to the line of “Making Hyndburn a better place to live, work and visit.”  House values would be reduced, and the area would become less attractive to potential new residents, reducing the appeal of the Borough and affecting the economic growth of the area. Council Tax reductions would be sought.  Have the correct landowners been notified and given consent – the Dunkenhalgh estate?  The extent of neighbour notification and length of time allowed for comments has been inadequate, particularly since there has been a postal strike. Many residents were not aware of the proposal, although residents over a very wide area would be affected. All residents affected should have been informed.

One of the letters suggests that a limited period of a few hours per week may be more acceptable. Another states that she has no objection to the military games providing there is no gunfire involved and lasers which could damage eyes are not used.

A letter of support has been received from Lancashire Rural Futures, raising the following points:  The applicant operates a dairy farm at Holt Farm with his son, who is employed off the holding and is looking to spend more of his time involved in the enterprise.  The shooting activity has operated for than 35 years. Due to the refusal of planning permission to extend the shooting hours, in order to progress with his farm diversification scheme the applicant is proposing an activity which will not create the same level of noise as clay pigeon shooting, therefore making the application satisfactory to the local authority.  The applicant has already purchased a number of buggies, which are used occasionally on site to establish noise levels. So far there have been no complaints.  It should be considered favourably for the targets it meets in the national policy, county and local plans for safeguarding and creating of jobs and the additional income brought into the rural community.

52 Relevant policy

Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Policy 5 Development outside urban areas Policy 20 Lancashire’s landscapes Policy 21 Protection of natural heritage

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan S1 Green Belt E10 Scale, density, design L1 Footpath protection

Applicant’s comments

The following information on the proposals has been provided by the applicant:  The applicant has operated a clay pigeon shooting ground at the site for in excess of 35 years. The applicant is the occupier of Holt Farm, Tottleworth Road. The clay pigeon shoot is a valuable farm diversification enterprise.  Planning permission was recently refused for additional shooting to take place from Monday to Friday for 4 hours a day in addition to the existing approved Sunday and 10 additional days shooting. The applicant intended to operate corporate clay pigeon shooting days as part of the farm diversification enterprise. Following this refusal, in order for the enterprise to progress, the current application has been submitted to allow an activity which will not create the same level of noise as clay pigeon shooting.  The applicant has already purchased a number of buggies which have been used on occasions in order to establish the noise levels of the buggies and whether they cause any noise disturbance of surrounding properties. A test event involving buggy racing and military games held on one evening in August 2007 involved 20 children and their parents from Rishton and Great Harwood. Local Councillors, Planning Committee Members and Rishton residents group were invited to attend, and one local Councillor and the chairman of the residents association attended and were supportive.  The applicant considers that the level of noise produced by the buggies is negligible in comparison with the clay pigeon shooting. The buggies have been used on the site several times without any complaints of noise disturbance. The currently-owned buggies are 250cc, and if the application is successful 50cc buggies would be purchased for use by children. Up to 4 buggies would be used at any one time on the track. The track is limited in size, only 4m wide, and takes a meandering course with a single start/finish point, and includes various ramps and cambers. There is no proposal to import and introduce any artificial material to create a surface for the track, and the route of the track will be identified by regular use by the buggies, rather than being a permanent structure of any sort. There has been no need to create ramps, the applicant having used the natural contours of the land and piles of soil from the previous use of the site as a sewage works. The track can be easily reinstated at any time. The buggy track is not proposed to be used by the general public with their own buggies or quad bikes, but would be used only by the applicant’s buggies under strict supervision.  The applicant considers that the military games do not create any significant noise which would be capable of being heard outside the site. The equipment used does replicate the noise of a gun, but this is at very low volumes and will not cause any noise disturbance. The games use infra-red technology with targets having a sensor to detect a hit, and do not involve paint or lasers.

53  The military games would take place within the entire application site, excluding the area of the buggy track, using different layouts due to the different tasks and games that can be simulated. The two proposed activities would take place at the same time, but never at the same time as clay pigeon shooting. The groups would be approximately 40 people in size, split between the two activities. The proposed hours of operation are 10am to 8pm, but these hours would only be operated fully during the light summer evenings.  Access to the site would be along the existing access track. The group sizes for the proposed activities would be very small in comparison with the 90 vehicles which arrive at the Sunday clay pigeon shoots during a much smaller time bracket and not causing any traffic problems.  1-2 additional staff would be employed at the site as a result of the proposal.  25-30 vehicles would visit the site during a normal day.  The applicant considers that the proposals are acceptable in terms of Local Plan policies S1 (Green Belt), E5 (Wildlife Corridors) and E10 (Scale, density, design), Structure Plan Policy 5 (Development outside urban areas), PPS7 Sustainable development in Rural Areas and PPG2 Green Belts.  The applicant feels that he has found a farm diversification enterprise that meets the Council’s requirements given the previous reason for refusal. It would enable his son to derive a livelihood from the site and would help strengthen the viability of the farm by bringing in a further diversified income.

Observations

Although many issues have been raised in the representations received, the key issues for consideration in this case are the acceptability in terms of Local Plan policies and Government guidance, traffic generation and the impact on neighbouring residents.

Policy S1 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan refers to development in the Green Belt, and reflects Government guidance on Green Belts contained in PPG2. Policy S1 refers to new buildings for the purposes of “essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation” being appropriate development in the Green Belt, and states that the need to maintain the openness of the Green Belt will be an over-riding consideration. Whilst the current application does not involve any new building, this type of outdoor sport and recreation is regarded as an appropriate land use within the Green Belt. In addition, the openness of the Green Belt would not be compromised by the proposal. In my opinion, the proposal would not conflict with policy S1.

Policy 20 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan requires that developments must be appropriate to the landscape character type within which it is situated and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration. Policy 21 requires that Lancashire’s natural and man-made heritage should be protected from loss or damage according to the hierarchy of designations. Lancashire County Council’s Ecologist has provided advice on the nature conservation issues raised by the application, specifically possible impacts on the Norden Valley, Rishton/Great Harwood Biological Heritage site (which partly includes the application site) and on nesting birds, the fragmentation/ isolation of habitats, and the possibility of spread of Japanese Knotweed. As the applicant has not submitted any ecological information in support of his planning application, she recommends that he be required to submit an ecological assessment to determine any potential impacts and to provide a basis for mitigation/compensation if damaging impacts are likely. The information required includes a Phase 2 level habitat survey and a breeding bird survey. In addition, should planning permission be granted, conditions would have to be imposed requiring a method statement to prevent the spread of Japanese knotweed, landscaping and restoration proposals and a

54 habitat creation and management plan. The Ecologist advises that if adequate mitigation/compensation cannot be guaranteed, the Council should consider a refusal of permission. The applicants have been requested to provide the required information, but at the time of preparation of the Committee report, none has been received. Therefore I recommend that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on nature conservation interests, or that adequate mitigation measures could be provided.

Lancashire County Council as highway authority has objected to the proposal on road safety grounds. The concern raised is that the proposed increase of activities at this site would overload the capacity of Tottleworth Road, given that whilst the activity participants may be expected to be few, spectator numbers could be significant. Given this advice, I recommend that the proposal be refused on the grounds that it would be detrimental to highway safety.

The principal concerns raised by neighbouring residents relate to the potential noise and disturbance which could result from the proposed additional activities at the site. The previous planning application for an increase in the hours permitted for clay pigeon shooting resulted in many complaints from residents of a wide area regarding the noise levels resulting from the existing clay pigeon shooting on Sundays around midday and ten other days a year, and the prospect of longer periods of noise nuisance, and the application was refused. From the objections raised in relation to the current application, neighbours are clearly concerned that the current proposals would have a similar detrimental impact on their amenities. A demonstration of the buggy racing and military games was attended by Planning and Environmental Health Officers. This involved 2/3 buggies using the track, and a group of 20 participants, mainly children, taking part in military games. Environmental Health Officers took readings of noise levels firstly within the application site and secondly on the edge of the nearest residential development to the buggy track and to the area used for military games on that day, adjacent to the rear boundaries of properties in Brantwood, Clayton-le-Moors. The background noise at the second point was predominantly noise from distant road traffic, particularly the M65. The measurements taken there when the quad bikes were in use showed that there was minimal impact on the background noise level. The military games did not give rise to appreciable noise at the time of the demonstration. On the basis of the noise levels experienced on that day, the advice given by the Environmental Health Officer is that the proposal should not have any detrimental effect on the amenity of local residents, providing that the conditions similar to those at the time of the noise measurements do not change, and subject to the imposition of conditions limiting the number of buggies to 3 on the specified track only, and specifying maximum noise levels above background noise levels.

However, in my opinion, the issue is not merely one of measured noise levels. Although noise levels can be measured and controlled by condition, there is a subjective element in assessing the impact, and even if buggies and the equipment used in military games operate at low noise levels, there is likely to be intermittent and unpredictable noise and disturbance, such as shouting by participants. Whereas neighbouring residents currently suffer noise and disturbance over a relatively short period on Sundays and very limited weekdays, the proposal has the potential to result in noise and disturbance throughout the week, and into the evenings when residents may reasonably expect to enjoy a more peaceful environment. In my opinion, the objective noise assessments fail to adequately reflect the loss of amenity actually perceived or experienced by people living near the site and using the surrounding rural area. Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan requires that amongst other matters, the Council should, in considering applications, have regard to the relationship to existing land uses, the intensity of the proposal, and

55 the likely level of noise nuisance. For the reasons given above, I consider the proposed additional activities at the site to be unacceptable in terms of Policy E10, and I recommend refusal.

Whilst farm diversification schemes are supported in general in the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan and PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, positive benefits to the local environment and the need to have regard to the amenity of nearby residents are also mentioned. In my opinion, neither of these criteria is met in the case of this application

Recommendation

Refuse for the following reasons:

Reasons for refusal

1 The proposed development would, bearing mind the proposed hours of operation and the proximity of the site to residential properties, by reason of disturbance and noise have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents and users of the surrounding rural area, and therefore would be contrary to Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

2 The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development would not have a detrimental effect on nature conservation interests, nor that adequate mitigation measures could be provided. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policies 20 and 21 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan.

3 The proposed development would, by reason of increased traffic generation along the lane between Tottleworth and Hermitage Street, be detrimental to highway safety, and therefore would be contrary to Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

______

11/07/0647 Great Harwood Lodge Edward Street Great Harwood Blackburn BB6 7JB Modification of condition No. 4 of 11/03/0666 to increase the number of children from 60 to 100 Mr P Wells

Site description and locality

Great Harwood Lodge is a former residential nursing home built in the late 1980’s, which has been used since 2005 as a children’s nursery. It is located at the northern end of Edward Street, a cul-de- sac. A detached residential property adjacent to the site shares the access and is now in separate use. There are residential properties to the south, west and north. There is a public house to the east, and a social club and Lancashire County Council school library store to the south. There is a public car park 40m to the south on Holgate Street.

56 Details of proposal

Planning permission was granted for the use of the property as a children’s day care centre in January 2004, subject to a condition limiting the number of pupils present at any one time to 40. A further planning permission granted in February 2005 allowed an increase in the number of children from 40 to 60. This application seeks a variation of the condition to increase the number of children to 100.

Planning history

11/07/0103 Variation of condition no 3 (11/05/0600) to allow permanent use of residential flat. Approved conditionally 30.03.2007 11/05/0600 Change of use of part vacant residential nursing home (C2) to single residential unit (C3) for a temporary period maximum 18 months. Approved conditionally 03.11.2005 11/04/0887 Application to vary condition no 4 (11/03/0666) to increase number of children from 40 to 60. Approved conditionally 17.02.2005 11/03/0666 Change of use from Residential Nursing Home (C3) to Children’s Day Care Centre (D1) (40 children). Approved conditionally 12.1.2004. 11/88/0125 Erection of home for the elderly. Approved conditionally 2.6.1988. 11/87/0631 Erection of five dwellings. Withdrawn 1.3.1988. 11/81/0330 Erection of one dwelling. Refused 15.7.1981.

Consultations

Lancashire County Council (Highways): Objects on highway grounds.

Neighbours: A letters of objection has been received from the adjacent Lancashire County Council School Library Service, raising the following points:  The school mobile library vehicle delivers books daily to over 500 schools in Lancashire. It leaves the Edward Street premises daily at any time between 07.45 and 10.00, returning between 15.00 and 18.00, and on some days returns also at lunch time. This is when people using the nursery are dropping children off.  The vehicle is 9m long and is a large vehicle which requires adequate space to exit and access the premises. They have had many problems with parking outside their premises since the nursery opened, and although the nursery manager has helped by encouraging parents and visitors to park safely on the public car park and local streets, the majority choose to park illegally in the middle of the road, on yellow lines on Edward Street or in front of the access to the LCC premises, causing a constant hazard accessing and exiting Edward Street, for both the library vehicle and for other people using the street. When local residents and businesses park on the unrestricted side of the street, illegal parking on yellow lines results in the library vehicle being unable to leave the premises, affecting service to schools which is on an appointment and time scheduled delivery basis. Dropping-off children can take up to 20 minutes, not just a few minutes. Reporting the problem to the Police or Parkwise has had little effect as there is little parking warden presence in the area and by the time anyone arrives the offenders have gone.  An increase in the number of children will bring more cars to what seems to them a very busy little street waiting for an accident to happen. Thoughtful consideration should be given to the problems they are encountering on a daily basis.

57 Relevant policies

Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Policy 4 Key Service Centres

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Policy TR7 Car parking provision Policy E10 Scale, density, design

Applicant’s comments

In support of the application, the applicant has made the following comments:  The nursery is well-established, providing a community facility and employment adjacent to/partially within the defined shopping centre and Conservation Area. The site is close to all other community and shopping facilities and is surrounded by a residential area of dense terraced houses, with excellent public transport links and easily accessible on foot.  Policy 4 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan identifies Great Harwood as a Key Service Centre and states “Development in Key Service Centres will be sufficient to promote their regeneration and support and enhance their role as Service Centres and public transport hubs for the surrounding villages and rural areas.” The supporting text identifies Great Harwood as having “the potential to promote social inclusion, i.e. increase access to housing, services, education, healthcare and employment for everyone” and having the benefit of “the existence of good transport links to surrounding towns and villages or the potential for further enhancement.” It is essential that childcare facilities are situated within the centre of communities, where parents and staff have easy access.  Central Government supports pre-school education for all 3-4 year olds through funding, including provision in private nurseries. Many of the children attending the nursery do so for educational purposes as well as those of working parents.  Applying the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan parking standards, and making allowance for the reduction resulting from the site’s medium accessibility, the maximum number of car parking spaces to be provided for the 18 staff proposed is 11, and the drop-off area for 100 children would be 8.5 spaces. 10 spaces are available on site, and the present practice of parents dropping-off children in Edward Street would continue in lieu of a drop-off zone.  When assessing whether parking provision is adequate, the specific circumstances of the site should be taken into account. Edward Street is a short cul-de-sac serving the nursery, the LCC library premises, 2 residential properties and the side of the club. It is not a busy through route and there are parking restrictions on the west side of the street to preserve access for the mobile library vehicle. The mobile library leaves at approximately 9.30 and returns at 14.30. The nursery makes parents aware of these times and parents can consider the need for turning space by the library vehicle when parking. In case of unexpected shortage of on-street parking or staff parking, the nearby public car park, recently improved, is available.  A more robust test of parking requirements is a survey of the present travel characteristics of the site, carried out on 10th July 2007, a typical day. 62% of children arrived on foot or by bus, with arrival times staggered throughout the day with morning and evening peaks. Of the 13 current staff, 61% arrived on foot or by bus, 38% by car, and 5 staff cars were parked on site on that day. The additional 5 staff required under the proposal are unlikely to all be car drivers, but if so, the 10 spaces on the site would be sufficient.  Children’s nurseries do not operate at full capacity all of the time, since some attend only part time, and as the numbers of 3 year olds receiving funding increases during the year, full

58 capacity is only reached during the summer term. Part of the reason for requesting an increase in numbers is to facilitate the expansion of the after school club. It is unlikely that there would be 100 children on the site all of the time.  The number of children and staff who do not travel by car reflects the accessible location both on foot and by bus. It would be better to expand an existing facility in a sustainable location where the track record of green transport can be demonstrated than to encourage nursery provision in a less built-up location where plenty of car parking can be provided.

Observations

The key issues for consideration are the suitability of the building and site for the increased numbers, the impact on traffic generation and road safety and the impact on neighbour amenity.

The nursery occupies a two-storey building which includes accommodation for the manager/owner. 10 car parking spaces and an enclosed play area are provided within the site. The registration procedure for use as a day nursery would require that the building and facilities provided are of an acceptable level and standard.

The original planning permission granted for the children’s nursery was limited by condition to 40 pupils present on the premises at any one time. During work to set up the nursery, the applicant felt that the building was of sufficient size to accommodate more than the 40 children allowed under the permission, and applied to increase that number. As originally submitted in the second application, the applicant was seeking an increase to 80 children, but following discussions with Officers, the proposed number was reduced to 60, and planning permission was granted for an increase to 60. At that time, the Head of Engineering Services expressed concern that the increase in numbers to 80 children could lead to congestion in Edward Street so as to be detrimental to road safety.

Edward Street is only 30m long, a cul-de-sac with parking restrictions along one side and an access point to the LCC library premises. From the information given by the LCC library service, it appears that there are already significant problems caused by on-street parking by parents and visitors to the nursery. The survey information provided by the applicant indicates that the number of vehicles visiting the premises has a significant peak during the morning and afternoon. In particular, at the busiest times, which may coincide with the times that the library van leaves or enters the adjacent LCC premises, the numbers of vehicle movements relating to the nursery would be approximately 26 in the period 7.45 to 10.00 and 26 in the period 15.00 to 18.00.

The advice provided by Lancashire County Council as Highway Authority is that there is insufficient parking/drop-off capacity within the site for the present level of operation. Parents delivering children by car invariably park in Edward Street rather than using the nursery car park or the nearby public car park, giving rise to obstruction of access to properties, then reverse out into Commercial Street thus creating a hazard to themselves and others. The Highway Engineer’s view is that any increase in the scale of the operation would lead to a worsening of the situation, a widening of the affected area, and further detriment to all classes of traffic. Therefore he recommends that planning permission be refused on the grounds of detriment to highway safety, and I concur with this view.

Although in general I would accept the applicant’s assertion that a location on the fringe of a town centre, accessible by public transport and on foot, is an appropriate location for a children’s nursery and would add to the range of services available within the town, in my opinion in this particular

59 case the detrimental impact on highway safety would outweigh the benefits to the community of greater pupil numbers.

Whilst there are residential properties around the site, I do not consider that the amenities of residents would be detrimentally affected by the increase in numbers now proposed, particularly in view of the location of the building within an area of mixed uses in the town centre.

Recommendation

Refuse for the following reason:

Reasons for refusal

1 The arrangements for car parking and dropping-off/collecting of pupils are considered unsatisfactory for the increase in pupil numbers proposed. The proposed development is likely to result in the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles on the highway to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies TR7 & E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

______

11/07/0744 Owl Hall Plantation Road Accrington Refurbishment of hall and cottage to form 4 dwellings; erection of 14 additional dwellings (making a total of 18 dwellings) landscaping and car parking Harriet Homes Ltd

Site description and locality

The application site is located on the south side of Plantation Street and to the east of residential properties on Aysgarth Drive and Askrigg Close. To the north of Plantation Road there is an area of public open space and two isolated dwellings, Arden Hall and The Coach House. The site is outside the urban area and in a Countryside Area as designated on the Proposals Map of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

The roughly square application site rises up from Plantation Road with the fire damaged Owl Hall and the limited remains of a stable block located on higher ground in the south-eastern part of the site. The site benefits from a secluded rural location and is surrounded by a large number of mature trees, some of which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Notwithstanding the attractive location the building has become increasingly dilapidated, is now fire damaged, and is in need of significant repair prior to any future use.

Details of proposal

The applicant seeks permission to subdivide the existing house into four residential units, create a mews of three further dwellings in the footprint of a derelict coach house and erect eleven further dwellings within the grounds, comprising a pair of terraced rows - (one of four properties and one of five properties) as well as two detached houses. The properties are all proposed to be accessed

60 via two separate driveways off Plantation Road. 47 parking spaces are provided on site. As stated above, the application site is heavily wooded and the proposal would necessarily result in the removal of a large number of trees. Consequently, a detailed scheme has been submitted to identify compensatory planting.

Planning history

No recent planning applications relate to this site. Enforcement action was taken against the unauthorised use of the site by a previous owner as a stone yard. An appeal against the enforcement notice was unsuccessful and the use has now ceased.

Consultations

Lancashire County Council – Strategic Planning: Any comments will be reported at the committee meeting. Lancashire County Council – Highway authority: Any comments will be reported at the committee meeting. Head of Environmental Health: Any comments will be reported at the committee meeting.

Neighbours were consulted by letter and site notices were displayed and a press notice published. Five letters of objection have been received to date however consultations are still in progress at the time of writing this report. Any further representations will be reported at the committee meeting. The letters received raise the following concerns:

 The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of trees which would adversely affect wildlife in the area.  The proposals constitute an over –development of the site.  The development will have an adverse impact on wildlife and the efforts to create a nature reserve at the former Arden Hall.  The cobbled access track should be preserved as a part of the heritage of the area.  The proposed passing point might require the removal of the stone wall.  The access is unsuitable for the development proposed.  Increased traffic would create permanent disturbance.  The access is a popular route for walkers and the increased traffic would be a hazard especially where the public footpath joins Plantation Road.  Many local children cross Plantation Road to attend local schools and the traffic would be a hazard.  If the site needs to be occupied then it could be occupied by one family, not 18 houses.  The development will have a detrimental impact on the rural landscape, wildlife and the character of the area.

I have also received a letter from Greg Pope M.P. asking that a number of concerns from local residents are taken into consideration by the committee in making the decision on the application. The concerns listed are all as already set out above with the exception of the following additional points:  The fact that the site has suffered from neglect and has been the location for various illegal activities should not be a reason to grant planning permission. This would merely encourage others to allow their sites to deteriorate.

61  The restoration of the Hall as a dwelling and the conversion of the stables to a separate dwelling could be acceptable.  The Council took no action some years ago concerning the felling of trees within the Tree Preservation Order. The Council should insist on the replacement of the felled trees.

Relevant policies

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan Policy S5 Countryside Area Policy E3 Retention of Trees Policy E10 Development Principles Appendix One: Rural Dwellings and the Conversion of Buildings in the Countryside Supplementary Planning Guidance: New Residential Development in the Borough

Joint Lancashire Structure Plan Policy 12 - Housing Policy 20 – Lancashire’s Landscapes

Observations

The applicant seeks permission to erect a number of houses in the grounds of Owl Hall, at the end of Plantation Road, as well as to introduce a more intensive residential use of the Hall itself. The main issues for the Council’s consideration are the acceptability of residential development in this area outside the urban boundary, the type and scale of development proposed and the implications any approval may have for highway safety, neighbourhood amenity and on the general character of the area including ecological impacts.

The application site is approached via Plantation Road, passing the main gates to Arden Hall on the left, along a cobbled track. Owl Hall itself is located to the south of Plantation Road in an elevated position set back from the road, with the front elevation facing west. The building is a substantial residence and, although typical in scale and location for its age, does not benefit from a particularly imposing façade or any particularly attractive architectural features. The building has, over the years, seen a number of additions to the main structure and, although not unattractive, the building is of no great architectural merit and is not listed. It should be further noted that the building is in poor condition throughout (and was so even before the recent and well publicised fire) and would require considerable repair should it be brought into any sustainable and ongoing future use. Where the building itself may lack a particularly special character the grounds themselves compensate: the site rises away from Plantation Road and is heavily wooded with a mix of mature deciduous varieties in a cohesive and attractive woodland which serves well to frame the Hall and add significantly to its scale and setting. Importantly, a significant area of the surrounding treed landscape falls within a Tree Preservation Order and as such should be granted particular consideration by this committee.

The first matter which the committee must consider is the acceptability of the site for residential development in principle. As members will be aware, new residential development within Hyndburn is necessarily restricted by Policy 12 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan with further advice set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on New Residential Development in the Borough. Although a number of exceptions have been identified to what is, in effect, a moratorium, such exceptions have been specifically designed to assure that any future

62 development within the borough only occurs in the most sustainable locations and in the public’s best interests. Consequently, one of the principal tenets of that guidance is that, until such time as a sufficient supply of housing land cannot be identified, all future residential development should be on brownfield land and within the most sustainable areas of the borough. While the site is previously developed land (brownfield) guidance makes it clear that there is no presumption that previously developed land is necessarily suitable for development nor that the whole of the cartilage should be developed. Specifically the second element of the above requirement is identified as being only land within the identified urban area of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. The application site does not fall within the urban boundary and is in fact allocated as part of the Countryside Area of the local plan. As such, I would advise that the acceptability of residential development in this location is fundamentally unsound.

National planning guidance dictates in such circumstances that applications should be refused unless material considerations can be shown to outweigh the proper application of adopted policy. Although the developer has attempted to make a case that such considerations do exist, it is necessary to be mindful of the importance of housing related matters in the regeneration of the borough as a whole within the identified urban area, and in particular within the Housing Market Renewal Areas. Consequently it should be expected that such policies would only likely be outweighed in the most exceptional of circumstances.

The developer in this instance recognises that his proposal falls outside of the urban area but has asked that particular consideration be given to the neglect of the site, ongoing vandalism and a history of vicarious and unacceptable uses which he argues should weigh in favour of redevelopment and as justification for setting aside adopted policy. To further his arguments the applicant has included in his submission letters of support from both the Fire Authority’s local Station Manager and the Accrington Neighbourhood Policing Team recognising Owl Hall as an ongoing problem site which would benefit from occupation. Although the council should indeed be mindful that this is an area of ongoing concern to the Fire and Police authorities, there is insufficient weight in the submitted arguments to suggest that this is a particularly unique or badly afflicted site which should necessitate anything other than the proper application of policy. Both authorities recommend that occupation of the building would help but, of course no planning permission would be required simply re-instate the building as a dwelling.

To compound the above concerns I would highlight the potential for setting an undesirable precedent for allowing housing development in the countryside area and the proposition of an unjustifiably low criterion by which a policy of Borough wide significance can be overridden.

It is necessary to judge the scale of development proposed and the implications which any approval may have for neighbourhood amenity, ecology and on the general character of the area. While the application site is isolated so that the proposed development would not create any issues of overlooking or privacy for existing residents in the vicinity, a number of other amenity issues must properly be considered in the determination of this proposal. Because the application site is within the Countryside Area it is subject to Policy S5 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan which requires that all development in such areas must be needed for the purposes of agriculture or forestry or other uses appropriate to a rural area and be in scale and character with the rural nature of the surroundings and completed in appropriate materials. Although appropriate materials have been indicated in the plan, the proposal is not required for the uses stipulated and also represents a considerable overdevelopment of a currently tranquil site wholly out of keeping with a countryside area. The resultant removal of 41 mature trees of varying quality and hard surfacing of a significant proportion of the site to provide access roads and a large number of parking spaces would

63 unacceptably alter the character of the grounds as well as the area as a whole and significantly diminish the existing appeal of the Hall itself. The removal of a significant number of trees and the formation of this number of dwellings with associated traffic and general activity would create a significant urbanisation of this cobbled section of Plantation Road currently used as an essential access by pedestrians to important countryside and amenity areas and the development. Policy 20 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan also requires development to be appropriate to the landscape character type within which it is situated and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration. The proposal, in effect, represents the creation of a small housing estate within the Countryside Area and, in my view does not comply with either Policy S5 or Policy 20.

While the formal views of the highway authority have not yet been received no major highway issues were raised during pre-application discussions on the proposals. It is anticipated that the highway authority views will be reported at the Committee meeting.

In the light of the above matters I would recommend that the application be refused as an unacceptable location for residential development outside of the urban area and contrary to the intentions of the Council’s adopted SPG on New Residential Development, as well as on grounds of the loss of a significant number of trees, loss of rural character and an unacceptable impact on the setting for the Hall itself created by an overdevelopment of the site. I would further advise that refusal is justified by virtue of the scale of development and potential impact upon the amenity of the countryside area contrary to the intentions of Policy S5.

Recommendation

The period for consultation replies as set out in the press notice expires on the 14th December and therefore I am recommending that powers be delegated to the Chief Planning and Transportation Officer to refuse the application for the following reasons after that period.

Reasons for refusal

1 There is currently an adequate supply of housing land within the Borough as demonstrated in the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for New Residential Developments in Hyndburn. The development of this site, outside the urban area, for residential purposes would add to the number of housing completions within the Borough which is already exceeding significantly the completion rates as set out in Policy 12 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan 2001/16. The development of this site for residential purposes outside of the urban boundary would not accord with the detailed exceptions within that document and would conflict with the intention of the Council to concentrate regeneration within the existing urban boundary and as such there is not a need or adequate justification to allow this development at the present time.

2 The proposed residential development outside the urban boundary and within a Countryside Area as shown in the Proposals Map of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan, would be contrary to Policy S5 of the plan and Policy 20 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan in that the development is not for agriculture, forestry or other uses appropriate to a rural area or appropriate to the landscape character type in which the site is located.

64 3 The proposed development would result in the direct loss of a number of trees on the site which contribute significantly to the character, ecology and visual amenity of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies E3 and E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan.

______

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

65