Planning Applications - Hyndburn Borough Council

REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 JANUARY 2008 

REPORT BY: CHIEF PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION OFFICER 

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

APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 

1990 FOR DETERMINATION 

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

1. 11/07/0455 Land north of Queen Street, Great Harwood 2 

2. 11/07/0587 62 Petre Crescent, Rishton 19 

3. 11/07/0656 Premier Mill, Arthur Street, Great Harwood 22 

4. 11/07/0692 Cannon Street Baptist Church, Cannon Street, Accrington 28 

5. 11/07/0694 Cannon Street Baptist Church, Cannon Street, Accrington 33 

6. 11/07/0697 Land at Back Lane, Baxenden 35 

7. 11/07/0711 10 Paynter Close, Clayton Le Moors 39 

8. 11/07/0719 Land at junction of Town Hall Street and Game Street, 

Great Harwood 

42 

9. 11/07/0728 9 Lindadale Avenue, Accrington 45 

10. 11/07/0733 Whinney Hill Garage, Whinney Hill Road, Accrington 49 

11. 11/07/0738 Former Garage Site, Pansy Street South, Accrington 54 

12. 11/07/0755 75 Brantwood Avenue, Knuzden 59 

13. 11/07/0186 Browfield Farm, Back Lane, Baxenden 62 

14. 11/07/0707 3 Tottleworth, Rishton 65 

15. 11/07/0749 17 Tennyson Avenue, Oswaldtwistle 68 

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 APPLI ATIONS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR CONDITIONAL 

APPROVAL (Cat A) 

11/07/0455 

Land north of Queen Street Great Harwood 

Erection of retail superstore (use class A1) and associated car parking, service yard access 

and landscaping 

Hunterswalk Limited & Tesco Stores Ltd 

Site description and locality 

This site, currently occupied by Metflex Ltd, is located on the northern side of Queen Street, Great 

Harwood and about 170m east of the edge of the Great Harwood retail area as shown on the 

Proposals Map of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. The site is located at the junction of Queen 

Street and Park Road and has a frontage of about 180m to Queen Street and 90m to Park Road. 

The site is mainly occupied by an industrial complex together with a car sales site and a vacant 

grassed area fronting on to Park Road. 

To the north the site is bounded by the Windsor Road Recreation Ground which has substantial tree 

planting on the common boundary with the site. Beyond the recreation ground there is a substantial 

area of mainly terraced houses. There is a further area of housing, known as Charter Brook and a 

small supermarket (Whitehead’s) on the southern side of Queen Street, opposite the application site 

while to the east there is another car sales and repair garage and other industrial properties. 

Immediately to the east of the site and fronting Queen Street, there is a petrol filling station, while, 

between the site and the town centre there are a number of small industrial uses and a public house. 

Details of proposal 

The application proposes the demolition of all buildings on the site and the erection of a 

supermarket with access via a new mini-roundabout at the junction of Queen Street and Park Road. 

A separate service access is to be provided at the western end of the site. In addition to the 

formation of the mini-roundabout the proposals include the provision of traffic lights at the junction 

of Whalley Road and Hyndburn Road. 

When originally submitted the application proposed the erection of a supermarket with a gross 

floorspace of 5519m 2 which was divided into 2248m 2 convenience goods and 1295m 2 comparison 

goods. The remainder of the gross floorspace was made up of 248m 2 coffee shop and staff 

rooms/offices etc (1728m 2 ). The original proposal involved a small first floor area and also a 

separate flexible retail/office/restaurant unit (93m 2 ). 

Following an assessment of the proposals against current retail policy and government guidance by 

the Council’s retail consultants the proposals have been reduced somewhat in scale. The flexible 

units have been deleted from the application and the supermarket is now only a ground floor 

development. The overall gross floorspace is now 4900m 2 , the comparison goods area remaining 

as originally submitted but the convenience goods area reduced to 1825m 2 . The coffee shop area is 

now at ground floor level and remains the same size and there is a marginal reduction in the 

staff/office areas to 1532m 2 . 

349 car parking spaces are proposed which includes 20 disabled spaces and 16 parent/child spaces. 

2

The building is to be located towards the western end of the site with a service yard on its western 

side and the car park mainly at the eastern, Park Road end of the site. The elevation fronting the 

car park is almost fully glazed and this glazing wraps around the south-eastern corner of the 

building, where the main store entrance and coffee shop are located, and on to the Queen Street 

elevation. The Queen Street frontage also includes significant areas of terracotta tile cladding and 

cedar boarding. The remaining elevations (northern, to the recreation ground, and western, to the 

service yard) will have cladding and cedar boarding. 

Planning history 

Planning history relates to the Metflex site and is not relevant to the determination of this 

application. Planning permission was granted on 15 th December 2005 for a temporary two year 

period (11/05/0737) to use the eastern part of the site for second hand car sales. 

Metflex Ltd. were granted planning permission on 22 nd October 2007 for the erection of a Class B2 

manufacturing unit with associated plant and staff parking on land at Alan Ramsbottom Way 

(11/07/0451). Metflex propose to transfer their business from the existing premises on the 

application site to the new premises to be built at Alan Ramsbottom Way. 

Consultations 

Lancashire County Council (Highways): No objections in principle subject to detailed design of 

mini-roundabout and traffic light controlled junction at Whalley Road/Hyndburn Road. Car parking 

satisfactory but service yard needs to be re-designed including removal of servicing layby. Need 

for financial contribution towards bus facilities on Queen Street. 

Lancashire County Council (Strategic Planning): Considers that the proposed development 

conforms to strategic planning policy; scale of the retail development would be complementary to 

the size and role of Great Harwood – issues of quantitative and qualitative need, sequential 

approach and retail impact have been satisfactorily addressed; even if the site were lost to 

employment use, an adequate supply of employment land would remain; archaeological 

investigations required; bats could potentially occupy existing buildings, and ecological advice may 

be needed. 

Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council: Objects to the proposed development but a smaller 

food sales area may be acceptable; applicant has not demonstrated that scale and character of 

proposed development is appropriate within a centre of Great Harwood’s scale and function, that 

there is a need for the scale of convenience floorspace proposed, or that the smaller units cannot be 

disaggregated and relocated to available alternative sites; catchment area adopted is too broad, 

given the proximity of higher-order centres; proposed development is likely to have a significant 

and adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Great Harwood centre. 

Ribble Valley Borough Council: No observations to make. 

Environment Agency: Original objection now withdrawn. 

Hyndburn Borough Council (Regeneration): Regeneration recognise that there is some need for 

the re-structuring of the existing shopping provision in the town and better shopping facilities will 

help improve the attractiveness of Great Harwood, attract new shoppers to the town and help retain 

local shoppers in the town. Some existing shops may be at risk and there needs to be good links 

between the proposed store and the town centre. Design, in particular the southern elevation, is 

unattractive. The store should be brought nearer to Queen Street and there should be an entrance at 

the western end of the store. Need for Section 106 contributions to support improvements to the 

town centre. 

3

North West Regional Assembly: Scale of proposal has the potential to change the nature of the 

service/retail role provided by Great Harwood; current level of retail provision in Great Harwood 

would appear to be in keeping with the need it services as an identified key service centre in 

submitted Draft RSS; no indication why such an increase in scale of provision is in keeping with 

the current size of the centre; not satisfied with the applicant’s reasons for disregarding alternative 

sites which were identified in the sequential approach. 

Head of Environmental Health: Conditions required regarding need for contamination survey, 

restricting delivery times and restricting noise from plant. 

Neighbour notification/site notice/press notice. Local residents and objectors were re-notified of 

the amended proposals. In addition the applicant held an exhibition in Great Harwood so that local 

residents and traders could view the plans and make comment and a public meeting was held in 

Great Harwood attended by the applicant and officers. In response to the notification procedures, I 

have received petitions bearing 516, 80 & 61 signatures, 31 individual letters of objection, 376 

signed copies of a duplicated letter of objection, 22 individual letters of support and 2 letters 

expressing support subject to some concerns. The petitions have not been copied with this report 

but may be inspected at the Planning Office. The objection letters include submissions by and on 

behalf of local retail businesses, suppliers of local businesses, and residents of Great Harwood, 

Rishton and surrounding settlements, and Friends of the Earth. The objections submitted include 

an appraisal of the submitted planning and retail statements and a sustainability appraisal submitted 

on behalf of the Co-op, on which I will comment further below. 

The following objections have been raised: 

• It would have an adverse effect on the existing shops. Every retailer in the town objects. It 

would be unfair competition. Existing businesses (including suppliers of local businesses) 

would be put out of business, and there is documentary evidence that this has happened in 

other towns. Some objectors claim personal experience of damage to their businesses in 

other towns following the opening of Tesco stores in those towns, Leyland, Clitheroe, and 

Haslingden. The Association of Convenience Stores has quoted similar cases in North 

Yorkshire and Norfolk. At the time of the Co-op application, the report to Planning 

Committee stated concerns regarding the “potentially fragile shopping on Queen Street.” 

The Co-op had limitations on non-food goods but Tesco is seeking to double the 

percentage. Figures and survey information submitted by Tesco are inaccurate or 

misleading. It would lead to large scale job losses and the effective killing off of town 

centres and communities when businesses large and small are forced out or go bust. It 

would completely change the character of the town, including the Conservation Area, 

affecting its heritage. Great Harwood would become a dead town devoid of small shops 

and varied independent retailers, leaving only Tesco, takeaways and charity shops and many 

empty boarded up shops. The Council would suffer a loss of Business Rates. Lack of 

choice for items not available locally, even in Tesco, would drive people away from the 

town. Given the distance of the site from the town centre, it is unrealistic for Tesco to 

suggest that their shoppers would load up their cars then wander off to make additional 

purchases within the town’s shopping streets. 

• Tesco’s claims that they work in conjunction with local retailers for the benefit of the town 

are just PR spin and an insult to the intelligence of both retailers and the community as a 

whole. Evidence from his own experience and from retailers in towns where Tesco has 

opened is that there have been no instances of co-operation, and in fact Tesco actually target 

specific sectors, using their business weight to corner all the markets and put others out of 

business. Tesco are taking over the world and are unethical and aggressive, selling a wide 

variety of goods, making it unnecessary for shoppers to go elsewhere for anything. 

4

Although 20 years ago Tesco could argue that a new Tesco store would attract customers to 

a town, in those days they sold only food, but this argument no longer applies. There are 

already Tesco stores nearby in Whitebirk and Clitheroe, and a possible future store in 

Accrington, all of which are accessible by public transport and car, with bus passes 

available for pensioners. This suggests that, contrary to Tesco’s argument that the store will 

attract new shoppers, it will only be used by Great Harwood residents. Within a 10 mile/20 

minutes driving radius there are already 7 Tesco stores, 3 Asda stores, 2 Sainsbury’s stores, 

1 Morrison’s store, 1 Co-op store and 1 Booth’s store. 

• Great Harwood is a small town of only 8000 people and is more than adequately covered 

with various food and other retailers large and small to meet current needs, appropriate in 

scale for a market town of this size. The Hyndburn Borough Council Retail Study 2005, the 

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan support this view, where the town is recognised as a Local 

Centre, and the Structure Plan classifies the town as a Tier 3 town, all of which clearly 

suggest smaller scale retailing. There are a variety of small traditional family-run retail 

businesses which are long-established and support other suppliers. Small shops provide 

personal friendly service which you don’t get in the bigger stores, and engage with the local 

community, e.g. Christmas Fayres. In the last few years, with hard work by many people, 

including Hyndburn Borough Council, it has become a thriving shopping area, with a 

strong community spirit and Queen Street at the heart of it. The Co-op has been a 

stakeholder in the town for many years, has made a substantial re-investment in its new 

store in 2001, and wishes to invest further in the town. The scale of the Co-op development 

is appropriate to the size of the town and also sits comfortably alongside other smaller 

retailers. The 2005 Retail Study concluded that one of Great Harwood’s strengths is that it 

is anchored by a main shopping destination (Co-op), which the Study states is likely to have 

assisted local centre performance. Under the adopted Plan for the Future (2006), Great 

Harwood is to be promoted as a historic market Town; a large store on the edge of the town 

centre could have a negative impact on efforts to regenerate the town centre. Unlike the 

existing Co-op store, a Tesco store of this size will not be of a scale appropriate to the 

existing Local Centre and will harm viability and vitality, particularly if its major impact on 

the existing Co-op store forces the Co-op’s closure in the medium to long term. The scale 

of the proposed Tesco, in addition to the existing Co-op, would be disproportionate for the 

size of the town, unless there were to be extensive housing development on large areas of 

Green Belt around Great Harwood. Tesco is not needed or wanted. We already have 

enough with the Co-op and local shops. Great Harwood needs to remain small and local. 

Only Tesco and not local residents will benefit from having a Tesco. Tesco don’t care 

about Great Harwood, they only want to rival Asda in Accrington. 2 supermarkets have 

already opened and closed, the old and new Co-ops on Glebe Street.. She can’t understand 

why another is needed, even with a different name. 

• The Co-op scores higher than Tesco for its ethical, environmental, green policies, especially 

in its support and range of fairtrade goods and local produce. Given Hyndburn’s promotion 

of these issues, should it not be encouraging stores with these policies? People should be 

encouraged to buy local produce in local shops rather than goods which have travelled 

thousands of miles and contributed significantly to global warming. The size of Tesco 

would attract customers from a wide area, but people should be encouraged to shop near to 

home. 

• The Co-op store has succeeded in becoming an anchor for a combination of main food and 

top up trade, and 91% of survey respondents said they have no problem accessing Great 

Harwood town centre. The Co-op is not overtrading, as the applicant is claiming. The 

applicants have not proven a quantitative or qualitative need for a new foodstore of this size. 

5

The actual need is for a limited amount of convenience provision, which can be delivered in 

the centre or immediately adjoining it. 

• There are further investment opportunities within and adjoining the town centre which can 

address the identified need of retail floorspace. Great Harwood has an above-average 

number of vacant units. It would be premature for the Council to grant planning permission 

for an “out of centre” foodstore when there are identified opportunities to accommodate the 

realistic retail needs of Great Harwood within the defined town centre boundary. The larger 

area around the Co-op is clearly suited to expanding the centre. 

• He believes that the large purpose-built Co-op is currently marginal on profit, and there is 

insufficient business in the town to sustain the Co-op, other independent retailers such as 

Whiteheads, and a large Tesco within 100m. The result would be the closure of the Co-op, 

boarded up, vandalised, graffitied, trashed and an eyesore. No other retailer would be 

interested in the empty Co-op, given that the level of profit they would need to sustain a 

business on the site would be untenable in a town the size of Great Harwood and given that 

it would be within 100m of Tesco. 

• The 150 so-called new jobs claimed by Tesco are not full-time positions, but part-time, and 

include increases for seasonal peaks like Christmas. There would be a net loss of jobs in 

Great Harwood due to business closures and because a large percentage of the vacancies 

would be filled from outside the town. For every 9 jobs Tesco creates, a minimum of 23 

losses of jobs/ livelihoods will occur in that community. 

• The traffic flow survey submitted on behalf of Tesco was conducted on 2 dates in July 2006 

addressing 4 junctions in the town. The survey is now out of date and does not reflect 

changes in the town. Having been commissioned by the developer it is biased and only 

represents their interpretation of the potential traffic issues. As this is a major development, 

LCC Highways should produce a full traffic impact assessment survey for the whole of 

Great Harwood, not just 4 junctions, with particular reference to the residential streets north 

of the site, especially Arthur Street where traffic flow will be exacerbated by the approved 

development on Premier Mill. What measures are the Council going to make to ensure that 

these highways are not used as rat runs when congestion occurs on Park Road? The LCC 

assessment should be accurate, using TRICS data and contemporaneous traffic survey data, 

and should take into account a comparison of present employment traffic at Metflex to the 

projected increase generated by a 348 car parking space supermarket. An increase in HGV 

traffic from the M65 along an already congested road also needs to be addressed. What 

measures have been taken to keep HGV’s (including construction vehicles) on designated 

routes? – signs and enforcement are required. 

• As the majority of shoppers would travel to the store by car, the development would bring 

much more traffic into the town, and result in increased congestion, particularly in Queen 

Street and Park Road, which is already subject to traffic restrictions and should be made one 

way and have a weight restriction. Queen Street, which is already poorly surfaced and 

congested, may deteriorate further in condition and become more gridlocked at some times 

of days, with consequent atmospheric pollution from standing traffic. The number of 

HGV’s in the town would also increase, particularly during the construction period, and the 

local roads are not suitable for these vehicles. The road from Clayton to the M65 is also 

heavily congested. Traffic lights would be needed at the Heys Lane/Whalley Road junction, 

where there are already long queues. Tesco and Asda do on-line ordering anyway so why 

would residents want the road congestion and extra traffic through a small town? Increased 

traffic would be a danger to local children and elderly people. 

• The amount of car parking proposed appears extremely limited in relation to the size of the 

store. In other towns, store extensions have taken place very soon after the store has 

6

opened, reducing the car parking still further, yet increasing demand for spaces. Tesco 

should give a binding undertaking that this would not happen. 

• For most of those living in Great Harwood without means of transport, a store on the 

perimeter of town would not be accessible. Unlike the Co-op, the site lies outside the 

primary shopping area, and given the walking distances from various parts of the town 

centre, shoppers will need to travel to the store by car, and will not necessarily use the town 

centre. 

• The proposals are weak in terms of sustainable development and does not conform to the 

sustainability objectives set out in PPS1 or those contained in the Council’s Sustainability 

Appraisal of the Local Development Framework. The Co-op’s consultants have submitted 

a Sustainability Appraisal of the scheme which concludes that the development is 

unsustainable. 

• The position of the goods entrance, next door to the filling station, could cause an accident, 

as there have been several near misses already at that point. All Tesco access should be 

from the proposed roundabout not from Queen Street. 

• The noise and environmental pollution, including night-time light pollution, caused by a 24 

hour supermarket would have a negative effect on the quality of life of neighbouring 

residents. 8m high lighting columns could be on from 6.30 am until midnight. A 24 hour 

hum at the back of her house would be detrimental to her health. Deliveries to the store 

would take place between 7am and 11pm, causing nuisance and traffic problems for local 

residents, and could take place at night. Although some residents of the Charter Brook 

sheltered housing may welcome the scheme, siting next to the housing would be 

environmentally detrimental to the wellbeing of most of the residents. It will cause 24 hour 

traffic noise, and increased traffic will make it dangerous for elderly residents. Residents 

already have problems crossing the busy Queen Street, and since the development will 

make the problem worse, a controlled pedestrian crossing should be located adjacent or near 

to the sheltered housing. 

• Tesco have failed to make a good case as to why the presumption against any change of use 

for employment land should be reversed. The Local Plan states that it needs additional land 

designated as employment land. There has been negligible advertising of the existing land 

for sale, the norm is 18 months of actively marketing the site. 

• Fears of the Metflex site being left as a dilapidated and derelict building could not be 

justified. Given the loss of “walk to work” employment in the area, and the lack of 

replacement employment, it could be used as business or office space compatible with the 

adjacent residential area. There is no objection to the redevelopment of the Metflex site 

when they move out. However, it would be far more beneficial to redevelop the site as a 

high tech, high spec business park of offices, workshops and showrooms, to attract new 

companies into the town, create new jobs, add to business for local retailers and be a 

prestigious development at the gateway to the town. Alternatively, housing on this 

brownfield site, particularly affordable housing for the local community, could be 

considered and would be far more beneficial than Tesco. 

• The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan, and the scale, nature and 

location of the proposed development significantly prejudices the implementation of the 

policies and proposal of the Development Plan. Due to its scale, it would dominate the 

town and be of great significance for the town as a whole, affecting not only the present 

generation, but many generations to come. The site is not allocated for retail development, 

and could be better used for the benefit of the local community. 

• Great Harwood is a unique small town. Everybody coming here is for a reason, nobody 

passes through as it is not a short cut to anywhere. Tesco would create a reason for visitors, 

causing too much traffic. 

7

• Crime would rise and this would be over 24 hours. 

• Money would be better spent on the NHS. 

• The financial contribution under the Section 106 Agreement should be held in a trust fund 

for use on projects within Great Harwood determined by the residents and Councillors of 

Great Harwood via the Area Council, and should not go to a central fund. 

• The recreation ground on Windsor Road shouldn’t be swallowed up, as the ground was 

gifted to the town for “public recreations”. 

• Their property will be devalued, as there are reports from other areas of losses of 10% of 

value. 

• It is the duty of employees and members of the Council to demonstrate to both residents and 

the electorate that all relevant data is produced with clarity, transparency and to be 

accountable when it is submitted prior to the Planning Committee. 

The following points have been raised in support of the application: 

• Local shops, including the Co-op and Whitehead’s, do not stock a full range of goods to 

enable a weekly or monthly shop to be done, and many people do their weekly or 

monthly shopping in Blackburn or Accrington and only do “top up” shopping in the Coop 

and Whitehead’s. The provision of good quality, convenient shopping in Great 

Harwood would reduce the need to travel, the environmental impact and the use of 

petrol. It would encourage healthy competition between the shops, bringing better 

products and prices. If permission is refused, the Co-op would continue to be allowed 

to stifle competition in Great Harwood as they have for a long time; the Co-op is too 

expensive, badly staffed and never fully stocked. Senior citizens who have no transport 

and have difficulty carrying heavy shopping would benefit considerably, as they do not 

have access to the more competitive prices available elsewhere and it would be more 

convenient for them to shop locally. The needs of the elderly should be considered and 

their views sought. 

• Most of the shops in Great Harwood are takeaways, hairdressers or charity shops, as 

well as banks and building societies. There is limited choice of clothes and shoes, and 

nowhere to buy electrical goods. There is only one butcher and greengrocer in a town 

of 10,000 people, therefore a supermarket will have little effect on the small shops. The 

development would bring in people from the surrounding areas, increasing the footfall 

within Great Harwood. When the Co-op opened, there were fears of a “ghost town” and 

shop closures, but this never happened and in fact their business improved due to people 

coming into the town and the regeneration of the area. 

• The development would tidy up a derelict area, which would kickstart regeneration in 

the town, getting back some life into the town and make a better access and view 

coming into the town. To survive, Great Harwood needs to regenerate not disintegrate. 

With thought and planning the development could be used to create a town with 

specialist shops and making Great Harwood a vibrant market town gateway to the 

Ribble Valley. 

• Accessibility for customers from outside the town is good by bus and foot, and it would 

be within walking distance of a good part of the town. Traffic lights at the Heys 

Lane/Whalley Road junction would be beneficial, and a one-way system in Queen 

Street could be considered. Complaints have not resulted from considerable numbers of 

HGV movements from a nearby site. 

8

• It would create 150 extra jobs, so people who live in Great Harwood can work here. 

This would partially offset the previous loss of 400 jobs when Unilever area left the area 

after an attempt to construct a new factory was considerably delayed by a few objectors. 

• It would bring substantial Business Rates for the Council. 

• Residents of Windsor Road have been plagued day and night by noise pollution from 

the Metflex factory, and are unable to open windows or on many occasions unable to 

sleep at night due to the constant reverberations from its machinery and expellers. 

Fumes from the factory are obnoxious and Environmental Health have been involved in 

the past, to enforce the firm to replace their filtering system. 

• He feels that a majority of people in the town support the application but have not had a 

chance to show it. The public meeting was dominated by objectors, and many people 

who supported the proposal could not show their support by questions. Following the 

meeting, the local press only reported the objections. He and the vast majority of 

townspeople feel sure that the Planning Department will be looking at a much bigger 

picture which will allow Great Harwood to move forward in a much more positive way; 

standing still and looking back is not the answer. 

• It is very important to secure the long term future of Metflex and its employees; that in 

itself supports the town. 

• She queries whether it is ethical and acceptable in terms of copyright for the objectors to 

copy pieces from newspapers and distribute them with a duplicated letter to residents. 

The applicant has submitted further representations following the submission of the planning 

application by the Co-op. They conclude that there is adequate quantitative need for both the Tesco 

proposal and the extension to the Co-op store to both proceed and trade. However they also agree 

with WYG that the proposed extension to the Co-op store would not, in itself, be sufficient to 

achieve significant retention of Great Harwood shoppers in the town or encourage new shoppers 

from the catchment area to visit Great Harwood. The applicant has commented on the Co-op’s 

Sustainability Appraisal of the development but take a contrary view to the objector. 

The applicant summarises that their scheme would secure the following retail and other wider 

regeneration benefits for the town: 

• Redevelopment of an unattractive ‘gateway’ site into Great Harwood town centre 

incorporating a modern building; 

• Providing a potential catalyst for other investors and regeneration in other areas of the 

town; 

• Making more efficient use of urban land given that the existing business on the site 

does not utilise the full site area; 

• Relocating an existing employer (Metflex) to modern premises required for future 

operation and potential expansion of that business. 

• This would secure 75 full time and 25 seasonal jobs in manufacturing in Great 

Harwood; 

• Relocating that business to a more appropriate ‘location’ on an area identified for 

industrial uses in Great Harwood; 

9

• Creating new employment opportunities (150 FTE jobs) in Great Harwood for local 

residents with the availability of flexible working hours in the Tesco to suit different 

life styles; 

• Providing a modern superstore near where people live with good accessibility by 

choice of transport mode. 

Relevant policies 

Joint Lancashire Structure Plan 

Policy 4 Key service centres 

Policy 14 Business and industrial land provision 

Policy 16 Retail development 

Policy 7 Parking 

Policy 21 Natural and man-made heritage 

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan 

Policy R3 Retail adjacent to retail areas 

Policy I3 Retention of employment land 

Policy E10 Scale, density, design 

Observations 

Retail policy 

Retail planning consultants, White Young Green (WYG), have been engaged to advise the Council 

on the retail policy aspects of the application. They have considered the submission against current 

government guidance on retail issues as set out in Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town 

Centres and against the various retail policies of the development plan. 

PPS6 was published in March 2005 and sets out the Government’s key objective for town centres 

of promoting their vitality and viability by: 

° Planning for the growth and development of existing centres; and 

° Promoting and enhancing existing centres by focusing development in such centres and 

encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all. 

In order to deliver the Government’s objectives of promoting vital and viable town centres 

paragraph 2.1 of PPS6 states that: ‘…development should be focused on existing centres in order to 

strengthen and, where appropriate, regenerate them.’ 

Local planning authorities should require applicants for retail developments to demonstrate: 

a) the need for the development; 

b) that the development is of an appropriate scale; 

c) that there are no more central sites for development; 

d) that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres; and 

e) that locations are accessible. 

10

WYG assessed the original submission against the above criteria. They concluded that while there 

was both a quantitative and qualitative need for additional comparison and convenience floorspace 

in Great Harwood, it was questionable whether there was sufficient qualitative need for the level of 

convenience goods floorspace originally proposed. Whilst they considered that there was capacity 

for the level of comparison goods floorspace proposed, they took the view that there was 

insufficient ‘retail spend’ in the defined catchment to support the level of convenience goods 

floorspace proposed, given the strength and proximity of competing provision. 

In terms of scale regional and local planning policy suggests that development of a suitable scale 

that would reinforce the centre’s role as a service centre for surrounding village and rural areas 

would be considered appropriate. However, WYG did not consider that a ‘need’ had been identified 

for the scale of development originally proposed; WYG concluded that the originally proposed 

superstore was inappropriate in scale to the catchment it is intended to serve. Indeed, the net 

floorspace proposed (3,543m 2 ) was comparable to the total net floorspace within, at the edge-of and 

at out-of Great Harwood (3,605m 2 ). By also including the two smaller units (93m 2 ) the proposed 

development would have represented a more than doubling of the total retail floorspace in Great 

Harwood. 

Sequentially WYG accepted that there was no more suitable centrally located site which could 

accommodate the supermarket element of the application but that there were a number of sites 

within the towns of the catchment area which could accommodate the flexible units originally 

proposed. 

Again on retail impact the level of clawback trade from other centres was felt to be overstated by 

the applicant and thus they had underestimated the likely impact on other retail outlets in Great 

Harwood, including the existing Co-op. 

The site is considered to be relatively accessible by modes of transport other than the private car 

and in particular is located on a bus route. Appropriate pedestrian and cycle routes to the store are 

proposed. There may be opportunities to enhance provision by means of a Section 106 Agreement. 

Thus WYG’s advice was that the original submission should be amended to remove the smaller 

flexible units from the scheme and to reduce the floorspace given over to convenience sales. The 

applicant has accordingly reduced the scale of the proposals and the Council’s consultants now 

advise that the proposals are satisfactory in retail policy terms and are in line with development 

plan policies. 

Through planning consultants, the Co-operative Group submitted objections to the proposed 

development, relating to, scale, location, need, impact on retail businesses, loss of employment 

land, accessibility and sustainability, which are included in the above list of objections received. 

The Co-op has now submitted an outline planning application for an extension to their existing 

store in Great Harwood, which is at an early stage processing. The application seeks to add a 916m² 

gross (733m² net) extension of Class A1 retail floorspace, to create an enlarged store of 

3408m²gross (2312m² net). 

WYG have provided advice for the Council on the retail policy issues which form the basis of the 

Co-op’s objection to the application and also on the implications of the Co-op’s planning 

application. The application does not specify a convenience/comparison split, but WYG have used 

an 86.5% convenience/13.5% comparison split as found in other UK Co-op stores. WYG advise 

that there is sufficient need (both quantitative and qualitative) to support both the extended Co-op 

11

and the proposed new Tesco store, and that the two proposals would provide a competitive and 

vastly improved retail offer, which would be to the benefit of local residents. WYG consider that 

an extension to the existing Co-op store on its own would not meet the identified need for 

additional convenience and comparison goods floorspace in Great Harwood, and considers it 

questionable whether it would significantly reduce the current leakage to larger supermarkets 

elsewhere. WYG advise that there are no reasonable grounds on retail planning terms for the 

Council not to support both the current Tesco and Co-op applications, subject to relevant conditions 

to control the future use of both stores. 

The Co-op have indicated to the Council that they are considering potential wider plans to provide 

a larger Co-op store, involving over 2000m² of additional retail floorspace and including land not 

currently in the Co-op’s control which may require relocation of existing uses. WYG consider it 

questionable whether a larger scheme is viable and deliverable, and consider it unlikely that such a 

scheme could be delivered in the short-medium term up to 2012, and therefore consider that limited 

weight can be attached to these wider proposals. 

Loss of Employment Land 

Policy I3 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan seeks the retention of sites currently used for 

business, industry, distribution or storage, except where the resulting environmental improvements 

or other material considerations outweigh the loss of employment capacity. 

In order to inform this policy, and in particular in connection with preparation work for the Local 

Development Framework, the Council commissioned consultancy work on current and allocated 

employment sites in the borough. Consultants Lambert, Smith and Hampton were employed to 

undertake an employment land study comprising of:- 

i) An assessment of a number of existing employment sites to determine whether they should 

remain in employment use should the existing use cease. 

ii) A criteria based policy for assessing planning applications on existing employment sites. 

iii) An assessment of how much land will need to be provided for employment purposes up to 

2021. 

Sites were placed in three categories, poor, adequate, and good. The current application site has 

been categorised as an “adequate” employment site in the Employment Land Study. 

The current occupiers of the site, Metflex Limited, have been granted planning permission for 

replacement premises on land at Alan Ramsbottom Way, enabling the firm to relocate to more 

efficient modern premises and to retain 100 jobs within the town. This relocation site does not 

represent new industrial land, but lies within an area already allocated for employment purposes 

(Classes B1,B2 & B8) under Local Plan Policy I1, and therefore there would be a loss of 

employment land as a result of the Tesco proposal. 

However, the applicants have satisfactorily demonstrated that there is currently an over-supply of 

allocated industrial land in the Borough in terms of the requirement set in Policy 14 of the Joint 

Lancashire Structure Plan. Furthermore, the applicants have satisfactorily argued that the potential 

future use of the site for offices, general industrial use or warehousing and distribution is not 

realistic given lack of demand for such sites when more motorway-accessible sites are available, 

and the potential conflict with neighbouring residential uses. In addition, the scheme would result 

in the creation of 150 jobs in the retail sector. 

12

Highways issues 

The highway authority has been consulted on the application, assessed the applicant’s submitted 

Transport Assessment and confirms that, subject to detailed design, both the proposed traffic lights 

at Whalley Road/Hyndburn Road and the proposed mini-roundabout are satisfactory in terms of 

providing a workable and adequate access to the site. The car parking levels are considered 

acceptable and there are adequate parking facilities for the disabled and for parent/child. Adequate 

cycle parking can be achieved by way of a condition. The highway engineer expressed concerns 

regarding operational difficulties which could arise from the detailed layout of the car park, but I do 

not consider this to be a matter of concern in determining the planning application as it would be 

entirely within the applicant’s site and not have an impact on the surrounding highway network. 

In terms of servicing the highway engineer expressed concerns about the arrangements and in 

particular the provision of a servicing layby on Queen Street. In order to address these concerns, 

the amended plans submitted include amendments to the service yard and the deletion of the 

servicing layby. The highway authority recommends the imposition of conditions and that a 

financial contribution should be made towards the East Lancashire Rapid Transit public transport 

initiative which includes upgrading bus facilities on Queen Street/Lomax Square. 

Design issues 

The application as originally submitted proposed a part two-storey building set well back from the 

Queen Street frontage. The reduction in the floorspace has meant that the building will now be 

entirely single storey. It is essential that, being an edge of centre site, the development has good 

pedestrian links to the town centre to encourage shoppers to walk between the two. The applicant 

has therefore agreed to bring the building closer to the Queen Street frontage and at the same time 

introduce an area of glazing into this elevation of the building. While the main entrance to the store 

will be at the eastern end of the Queen Street elevation. The re-arranged siting will give the 

opportunity to create a more attractive forecourt and improved pedestrian link to the town centre. 

The applicant has agreed to finance the re-paving of the footway on the northern side of Queen 

Street from the site to the edge of the town centre to a high standard. 

There will also be pedestrian access to the site from Park Road and from the mini-roundabout as 

well as in various locations along the Queen Street frontage. The existing mural on the Queen 

Street frontage of the site is to be retained and new low walls provided along the Queen Street 

frontage. The service yard is to be screened by a higher wall and the overall development will 

include landscaping and tree planting. 

Environmental issues 

The design of the building incorporates measures to reduce energy consumption and be sustainable, 

through north-facing roof lights, south-facing photovoltaic roof panels, reduced glazing on the 

south-facing elevation, and partial timber cladding. The inclusion of such features is in accordance 

with requirements contained in the Draft RSS. 

An air quality assessment submitted with the application concludes that during the construction 

period, releases of dust and particulate matter are likely to occur, but could be reduced through 

good site practice and the implementation of suitable mitigation measures. Once in operation, the 

proposed development would cause a minor adverse to insignificant impact on nitrogen dioxide 

levels and an insignificant impact on particulate matter levels. The Head of Environmental Health 

13

has considered the findings of the assessment and has not raised concerns other than recommending 

the imposition of a condition requiring investigations of potential contamination and underground 

gases. 

A noise assessment was undertaken with the objective of determining how noise that may be 

generated as a result of the proposal would affect the amenities of neighbouring residents. It was 

carried out on the basis that store trading and servicing and home shopping would be restricted to 

the hours of 0700 to 2300 hours. The assessment concludes that with suitable mitigation measures, 

noise levels from the fixed plant serving the development, from servicing and from car parking can 

be satisfactorily controlled, and that the increase in road traffic as a result of the proposal would 

result in a negligible noise impact. The Head of Environmental Health has considered the findings 

of the assessment and recommended the imposition of conditions as suggested in the report. 

Impact on neighbouring residents 

The nearest residential properties are the Charter Brook development, the nearest property lying 

22m from the proposed building. The neighbour notification and publicity procedure indicated that 

some residents of the Charter Brook scheme would welcome the development, particularly since it 

would make shopping easier and more convenient for them, the impact of increased noise and 

traffic was a concern, particularly if 24 hour opening was planned. The proposed opening and 

servicing hours are 0700 to 2300 hours only, and on the basis of the findings of the air quality and 

noise assessments, the Head of Environmental Health has not raised objections on 

noise/disturbance grounds, subject to relevant conditions. The existing industrial use of the site 

gives rise to some noise and disturbance, with the potential for further impact on neighbours should 

a new user take over the building. The re-siting of the proposed building nearer to the Queen Street 

frontage has brought the building nearer to the Charter Brook residents, but the existing industrial 

building occupies a similar position. There are residential properties to the north in Windsor Road, 

beyond the public open space, but these a located a minimum of 100m away from the proposed 

building with substantial tree planting between. I do not consider that the amenities of 

neighbouring residents would be adversely affected to a significant degree. 

Section 106 contributions 

The following matters may be considered appropriate for inclusion in a Section 106 Agreement, 

and are considered to be directly related to the proposed development: 

• An upgrade of the existing bus stop facilities on Queen Street as part of the proposed East 

Lancashire Rapid Transit public transport initiative. 

• Pedestrian footway improvements along the north side of Queen Street between the 

application site and the town centre. 

• Lighting to Queen Street from the proposed new roundabout to the town centre boundary. 

• Provisions within the S278 highway agreement relating to off-site works for the installation 

of traffic signals at the Whalley Road/Hyndburn Road junction. 

• Environmental improvements suggested in the document Great Harwood Town Centre: A 

Plan for the Future. 

Conclusion 

The applicants have satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal as now amended is acceptable in 

terms of policies on retail development and industrial land, highway and environmental issues, 

14

design issues and issues of neighbour amenity. Subject to appropriate S106 contributions, I 

recommend approval. 

Recommendation 

Powers be delegated to the Chief Planning and Transportation Officer to approve the application 

subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement which include the issues listed above and subject 

to the following conditions. The application should be forwarded to the GoNW in accordance with 

the Town and Country Planning (Shopping Development) (England and Wales) (No 2) Direction 

1993: 

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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the following 

plans: ***** 

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

4 The total floorspace in the building hereby permitted shall not exceed 4900 square metres. Of 

this floorspace no more than 1825 square metres shall be used for convenience goods sales 

(including checkouts), no more than 1295 square metres shall be used for comparison goods sales 

(including checkouts), and no more than 248 square metres shall be used for ancillary customer 

facilities comprising coffee shop/lobby/toilets/customer services. The remaining area (1532 square 

metres) shall be used for staff facilities/office/storage. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 

55 of the Planning Act 1990 and Section 2A of the Town and Country Planning (General 

Development Procedure) Order 1995 no internal alterations shall be carried out to the building to 

increase the gross floorspace and no alterations shall be carried out to alter the split of uses within 

the building from that specified above. 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the split of uses within the building does not 

change to an inappropriate split having regard to Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town 

Centres and the current development plan. 

5 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the external 

roofing and facing 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. 

15

6 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. 

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted 

Development) Order 1995 (or any Order or Statutory Instrument revoking and re-enacting that 

Order), details of the position, type and height of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall 

be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to installation. All 

boundary walls and other means of boundary treatment, in particular along the Queen Street and 

Park Road frontages, shall be designed and positioned in order to prevent indiscriminate pedestrian 

access along those frontages and shall guide pedestrians to appropriate access points. Boundary 

walls and other means of enclosure shall provide for the retention of the existing mural located on 

the Queen Street frontage. 

Reason: Inadequate details of fences and walls have been submitted with the application and in the 

interests of the visual amenities of the area and pedestrian safety, and in order to comply with 

Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

8 Prior to the commencement of the development a fully designed scheme of all hardsurfaced 

areas outside the building, including surfacing materials and street furniture, shall be submitted to 

and approved in writing by the local planning authority. In particular the proposed surfacing and 

use of materials in the area between the store and Queen Street shall enhance the pedestrian route 

between the store entrance and the Great Harwood town centre. 

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality as inadequate details of these matters 

have been submitted with the application and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn 

Borough Local Plan 

9 Before the development hereby approved is first brought into use the car parking area shall be 

hardsurfaced and marked out as indicated on the approved plan 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 and visitors' cars. The use of the car park by any car, light van or motorcycle 

shall be free of charge for a period not exceeding three hours during the period 0700 hours and 

2300 hours on any day. 

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, in order to encourage shopping linked trips 

between the store and the Great Harwood town centre and in order to comply with Policies E10 and 

TR7 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

10 Before any construction or engineering works commence on site details of facilities for the 

washing of the wheels of vehicles before leaving the site shall be submitted to and approved in 

writing by the local planning authority. The approved facilities shall be installed before any 

16

engineering or construction work commences on site and shall be retained for the full construction 

period. 

Reason To avoid the possibility of the public highway being affected by the deposit of mud and/or 

loose materials which could create a potential hazard to road users. 

11 No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until a scheme for the 

construction of the site access including service area access and the off-site works of highway 

improvement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority in 

consultation with the Highway Authority. No part of the development hereby approved shall be 

occupied or opened for trading until the approved scheme has been constructed and completed in 

accordance with the scheme details. 

Reason: In order to satisfy the local planning authority and Highway Authority that the final details 

of the highway scheme/works are acceptable before works commence on site and in order that the 

traffic generated by the development does not exacerbate unsatisfactory highway conditions in 

advance of the completion of the highway scheme/works. 

12 Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to, 

and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The Travel Plan shall be implemented 

within the timescale set out in the approved plan to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 

Reason: In order to promote alternative non-car based means of transport. 

13 No works shall take place on the site until the applicant, or their agent or successors in title, has 

secured the implementation of a programme of building recording and analysis. This must be 

carried out in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which shall first have been 

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 

Reason: To ensure and safeguard the recording and inspection of matters of 

archaeological/historical importance associated with the building/site and to comply with Policy E6 

of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

14 The application site is near to a former landfill site. Prior to any development taking place, a 

comprehensive landfill gas site investigation and assessment shall be carried out to determine 

whether or not the site is, or would have the potential to be, affected by subterraneous landfill gas 

migration from the nearby landfill site. The survey methodology shall be agreed in writing by the 

local planning authority prior to the survey work commencing. Should the site investigation prove 

the presence of landfill gas then no development shall take place until appropriate designs, based on 

expert advice, are incorporated into the proposed construction and development area to alleviate 

any landfill gas associated risks to the development. Such designs shall be submitted to and 

approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development. 

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of the future occupants of the land in the interests of 

public safety and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

15 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 

17

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. 

16 The hours of opening of the premises and the hours during which deliveries are made to the 

premises shall be confined to within the period between 07.00 hours and 23.00 hours on any day 

and no customers shall be present at the premises or deliveries made to the premises outside that 

period. 

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent properties and to 

comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

17 Development shall not commence until details of the fixed plant serving the development 

hereby permitted and any mitigation measures to achieve this condition, are submitted to and 

approved in writing by the local planning authority. The level of the noise emitted from the site 

shall not exceed 39dBA between 2300 hours and 0700 hours on all days and 42 dBA between 0700 

hours and 2300 hours on all days. The noise levels shall be determined by measurement or 

calculation at the nearest noise sensitive premises. The measurements and assessment shall be 

made according to BS 4142: 1997. 

Reason: To protect the amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and to comply with 


18 No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use until cycle stands or 

secured covered cycle storage space has been provided for pedal cycles in accordance with details 

which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and 

retained thereafter. 

Reason: So that the development provides for the needs of cyclists and provides a choice of modes 

of transport in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport. 

19 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved the developer shall submit an 

Energy Strategy for the site for the approval of the local planning authority. The strategy shall 

demonstrate how at least 10% of the predicted energy requirements of the development will be 

provided by on-site renewable energy sources. The development shall be implemented in 

accordance with the approved Energy Strategy. 

Reason: In order to ensure that a proportion of the energy needs of the development is provided by 

on-site renewables in order to comply with government policy on renewable energy. 

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 R3, I3 & E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. There are no other material 

considerations which weigh sufficiently against the proposal. 

18

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. 



of Policies 4,14,16,7 & 21 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan. There are no other material 


6 This permission does not grant or imply consent for any of the advertisement displays shown on 

the approved plans which will need to be the subject of a separate application for Advertisement 

Consent. 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

11/07/0587 

62 Petre Crescent Rishton Blackburn BB1 4RB 

Erection of 2-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension 

Mr H Higham 


This application relates to a detached house with an attached single garage to the side, located in a 

line of similar properties on the southern side of Petre Crescent. The property is surrounded by 

19

other residential properties on the estate with open countryside to the south-east, at the rear of the 

house. 


The application proposes the erection of an extension to the side and continuing to the rear of the 

property, part single-storey and part two-storey. To the front, the proposed two-storey side 

extension would align with the existing front walls at ground and first floor levels. Both the singlestorey 

extension and the two-storey extensions would project 3.7m from the rear wall of the house, 

across the full width of the property. 


Nil 

Consultations 

British Waterways: No comments. 

Neighbouring properties notified: One letter of objection has been received from the occupier of 

the adjacent property, No.64, raising the following points: 

• He notes that the extension would not now come up to the boundary. 

• A two-storey extension overlapping the rear of his house is not acceptable. It would block 

out light from their conservatory and garden, and would seriously detract from the position 

they currently enjoy. They sanctioned the overlap at the front of the house in the 

expectation that there would need to be minimal effect on their property at the rear. 

• No.62 is built at a higher level than No.64 so even a single-storey extension could have an 

impact on No.64. 

Relevant policy 



Observations 

The scheme has been amended since originally submitted, by reducing the width of the side 

extension to retain a minimum gap of 1m to the boundary with No.64, thereby building on the 

footprint of the existing garage. To compensate for the space lost through the reduced width, the 

applicant proposes to extend the first floor extension rearwards to align with the single-storey rear 

extension, projecting 3.7m from the original rear wall of the property. 

The key issues for consideration in this case are the scale, design and appearance of the proposed 

extension, the impact on the property and on the surrounding area, and the impact on the amenities 

of neighbours. 

The proposed extension would be in keeping with the existing property, would not be excessive in 

scale, and would retain an adequate gap to the adjacent property. In my view, the proposal would 

not have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the property, nor on the area in 

20

general. While a garage would be lost at the property there is adequate off-street parking space on 

the driveway. 

The adjacent property, No.64, is set approximately 1.2m lower than No.62, and is also set 2.5m 

further back from the road than No.62. The rear elevations of both properties face south-east. 

There are no windows in the side elevation of No.64 facing onto the proposed extension, although 

No.64 has a conservatory to the rear. The rear line of the proposed extension would be set 0.7m 

beyond the main rear wall of No. 64, with a separation distance of 3.2m. Given the orientation and 

the relative positions of the two properties, I do not consider that the occupiers of No.64 would 

suffer significant loss of sunlight or of outlook as a result of the proposal. As now amended, I 

consider the proposed extension to be acceptable. 


Approve subject to the following conditions: 









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. 


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 location plan 

and plan no. 545/1 received on 18 September 2007 and the amended plan no. 545/4 received on 13 

December 2007. 





of Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. There are no other material considerations 

which weigh sufficiently against the proposal. 

21

























________________________________________________________________________________ 

11/07/0656 

Premier Mill Arthur Street Great Harwood Blackburn 

Erection of 24 No. houses and 16 No. apartments following demolition of mill (Amended 

Plans 11/06/0435) 

Barnfield & Hyndburn Development Partnership 


This application relates to a site of approximately 0.9ha formerly occupied by industrial premises 

known as Premier Mill (No.1). Premier Mill (No.2) lies to the east of the application site, and is 

not included within the application; its current industrial use is to continue. The site is surrounded 

to the north, west and south by residential properties in Arthur Street, Alexandra Place, Thorn 

Street, Poplar Avenue and Windsor Road. 


The application seeks permission for amendments to an approved scheme for residential 

development following the demolition of the mill, for which planning permission was granted in 

22

May 2007 (11/06/0435). The site is currently being cleared. The scheme involves the erection of 

24 houses in linked two- and three-storey blocks and a three-storey block of 16 apartments in the 

south-eastern part of the site. Access to the houses would be from Arthur Street and, to the 

apartments, from Hartley Street. The applicants propose amendments to the appearance of the 

buildings, and the deletion of a path providing access for maintenance. 


11/06/0435 Erection of 24 no. houses and 16 no. apartments on site of Premier Mill (re-submission 

of 11/05/0056). Approved conditionally 16.5.2007. 

11/05/0056 Erection of 29 no. dwellings and 18 no. apartments on site of demolished mill. 

Refused 21.7.2005. 

11/95/0252 Cladding of eastern elevation and creation of 4 no. window openings. Approved 

conditionally 30.8.1995. 

11/82/0582 Retention of security fencing. Approved conditionally 27.1.1983. 

Consultations 

Lancashire County Council (Highways): No objections, subject to condition requiring road layout 

completion before occupation. 

Lancashire County Council (Strategic): Given that there is an extant permission for residential 

development on the site, this application does not raise matters of strategic significance. 

Head of Environmental Health: Potential for landfill gas and contamination to be investigated. 

Senior Parks and Development Officer: Commuted sum of £73,160 required as a contribution in 

lieu of on-site public open space provision and for 10 year maintenance – this sum has already been 

paid. 

Neighbour notification/site notices: I have received a letter and 2 petitions bearing 109 and 58 

signatures from the OXO Redevelopment Residents Consultation Group (attached as Appendix 1) 

and 3 individual letters from neighbouring residents, raising the following points: 

• The application fails to consider the traffic impact on the surrounding areas. The burden of 

increased traffic flow from potentially the whole site would be placed on Arthur Street, 

which is already a congested highway, and the surrounding streets of Thorn Street and 

Poplar Avenue. There is not a separate vehicular access for the apartments via Hartley 

Street; the revised pinch point opens the entire site for access into Arthur Street. The 

proposed application for the new Tesco Supermarket will be an additional burden. Arthur 

Street cannot cope with any more traffic. 

• The “design statement” or justification statement is two years old and is inaccurate, not 

relating to the current application. As the mill has been demolished it is now open land 

with no derelict buildings. 

• It fails to meet the criteria of policies - JLSP, RSS and Local Plan. 

• In the published adopted version of the Great Harwood Plan - July 2006 - it states that “this 

plan has been written for and belongs to the residents and business people of Great 

Harwood. It is not a plan for Hyndburn Borough Council to implement”. There is no 

reference to the supplementary guidelines of 19 th July 2006 in its contents. 

• This application of affordable housing does not fall within the 300m criteria or add to the 

vitality and vibrancy of the town, so it is therefore non-compliant with the Supplementary 

Planning Guidance, which has never officially been adopted by the Council or by 

Lancashire County Council. The application exploits interpretation rather than complies 

with policies. 

23

• Although the housing requirement for Hyndburn is to be revised to 189 per year for 2003- 

2021 there is oversupply. Approved applications are in great excess, 96 (50% of an annual 

quota) of these have been approved for the Partnership within a twelve month period. The 

completed figures for the last year 2005-6 of 316 exceed the policy. 

• It fails to meet the housing needs of the Borough, which has an 80% population living in 

Council Tax bands A-C, which meet the criteria of affordable family housing. There is 

ample existing stock of affordable housing with additional new “Elevate” stock soon. The 

needs of the Borough are for privately-owned retirement accommodation, which is 

highlighted in a number of reports held on file by the Council. 

• The houses are not in keeping with those in the area. 

• The apartment block which overlooks the rear of properties on Windsor Road has been 

amended to include first floor double doors in the rear elevation. These would overlook her 

rear yard area and look directly into her property through both first floor rear bedroom 

windows. 



Policy 12 Housing provision 


H2 Housing windfall sites 

H5 Open space in residential developments 

I3 Employment land 

E10 Scale, density, design 

SPG for New Residential Developments in Hyndburn 

Observations 

This application seeks approval for amendments to the planning permission granted in May 2007, 

involving: 

• Alterations to the shapes and positions of windows and doors. 

• Alterations to the porch roofs/canopies. 

• The deletion of timber boarding to front elevations. 

• The deletion of an enclosed path along part of the eastern boundary of the site, which was to 

provide maintenance access to the adjacent industrial building. 

The principle of development has already been accepted through the previous grant of permission, 

and the applicants have the “fall back” position of being able to implement the approved scheme 

should the current application be refused. The revised proposals do not result in any change in the 

acceptability of the development in terms of housing and employment land policies, and the fact 

that the mill has now been demolished to create a vacant site is not relevant in dealing with the 

current application. The approved road layout is unchanged in the current application, and 

Lancashire County Council has raised no objections on highway grounds. In determining this 

application, it is appropriate to consider only the impact of the proposed changes on the design and 

appearance of the development, and on the amenities of neighbouring residents. 

The revised elevational treatment of the proposed dwellings is more traditional in appearance than 

the approved scheme, with window sizes, shapes and positions, the design of the porch 

roofs/canopies and the materials used all being in keeping with the character and appearance of the 

24

surrounding area. The changes would not, in my opinion, have a detrimental effect on the outward 

appearance of the development, and I consider the changes to be acceptable. 

The path which would have been provided in the approved scheme along part of the eastern 

boundary of the site was to enable access to the side of the adjacent industrial building for 

maintenance purposes. It would have been locked at each end and would not have been for public 

access. The applicants, concerned about the security aspects of having an enclosed area adjacent to 

the curtilage of a dwelling, wish to delete the path. The path would have no benefit to the general 

public, and I consider it acceptable that it be deleted. 

The application has been revised since originally submitted, replacing rear-facing double height 

windows with conventional windows in the first floor of the apartment block, and this change 

satisfactorily addresses the concerns of overlooking raised by the occupier of a property on 

Windsor Road. In my opinion, neighbouring residents would not suffer loss of amenity as a result 

of the proposed development. 
















4 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the plans 

submitted on 8.10.2007, with exception of the amended plans nos. 2007/34/AP04B & 

2007/34/AP02C received on 13.12.2007 


5 The development hereby approved shall not commence until plans of the site showing details of 

the existing and proposed ground levels, proposed finished floor levels, levels of any paths, drives, 

garages and parking areas and the height of any retaining walls within the development site have 

been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall 

thereafter be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details. 

25

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out at suitable levels in relation to adjoining 

properties and highways in accordance with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

6 Prior to the commencement of the development full details of all surfacing materials to be used 

on all hard-surfaced areas of the development outside the buildings shall be submitted to and 

approved in writing by the local planning authority. 




7 The garage hereby approved shall be kept freely available for the parking of cars , and shall not 

be converted or altered to form an additional room within the dwelling without the submission and 

grant of a planning permission for that purpose by the local planning authority. 

Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking is maintained and thereby avoid hazards caused by 

on-street parking, and in order to comply with Policies E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

8 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 or E 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 . 

9 The application site is near to a former landfill site. Prior to any development taking place, a 

comprehensive landfill gas site investigation and assessment shall be carried out to determine 

whether or not the site is, or would have the potential to be, affected by subterraneous landfill gas 

migration from the nearby landfill site. The survey methodology shall be agreed in writing by the 

local planning authority prior to the survey work commencing. Should the site investigation prove 

the presence of landfill gas then no development shall take place until appropriate designs, based on 

expert advice, are incorporated into the proposed construction and development area to alleviate 

any landfill gas associated risks to the development. Such designs shall be submitted to and 

approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development. 

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of the future occupants of the land in the interests of 

public safety and in order to comply with Policies E2 and E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local 

Plan. 









26












Development) Order 1995 (or any Order or Statutory Instrument revoking and re-enacting that 

Order), details of the position, type and height of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall 

be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to installation. 

Reason: No details of fences and walls have been submitted with the application and in the interests 

of the visual amenities of the area, and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn 

Borough Local Plan. 

13 Before the development hereby approved is first brought into use the car parking area hatched 

in blue on the approved plan shall be hardsurfaced and marked out as indicated on the approved 

plan 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 private cars only. 


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. 

14 Before the development hereby approved is first brought into use all window(s) shown hatched 

green on the approved plans, and any subsequent replacements, shall be glazed with obscure glass, 

which shall be retained thereafter. 

Reason: To protect the privacy of the occupiers of adjacent property and in order to comply with 


15 Unless provision is made in a programme of work which has been first submitted to and 

approved in writing by the local planning authority, no part of the development hereby permitted 

shall be occupied until the carriageways, footways and traffic calming measures of the proposed 

access road, and the street lighting thereof, have been laid out, constructed, completed and 

commissioned in accordance with the layout and details shown on the approved drawings. 

Reason: In the interest of highway safety, and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn 


27




of Policies H2, H5, I3 & E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan and the Supplementary 

Planning Guidance for New Residential Development in Hyndburn. There are no other material 


























________________________________________________________________________________ 

11/07/0692 

Cannon Street Baptist Church Cannon Street Accrington BB5 1NJ 

Conversion of church into 16 No. residential apartments (Resubmission 11/07/0388) 

Y & Y Developments Ltd 

Application 11/07/0694 the application for Listed Building Consent relating to this development is 

also before committee for consideration. 

28


The Baptist Church is a large grade II listed chapel located centrally on the north side of Cannon 

Street opposite the former Conservative Club and adjacent to Cannon Street Council Offices. This 

property, the Council’s own offices and the Conservative Club create an attractive historic core to 

Cannon Street which is further enhanced by a number of protected trees on the church site. The 

site and surrounding area are within the Accrington Town Centre Conservation Area. 


The applicant seeks permission to re-use the existing church for residential purposes. The 

application details the installation of 16 units comprising 5 three-bedroom, 7 two-bedroom and 4 

one-bedroom units. To accommodate the proposed units the developer seeks to subdivide the 

existing church but also to insert a number of roof lights. 

The church itself although structurally sound is currently in a dilapidated and fire damaged state 

and, despite its listing, has endured a number of historic unsympathetic interventions. Principally 

the transept has been divided from the nave and a concrete mezzanine first floor has been installed. 


An application was made earlier this year (11/07/0388) for the same proposal. However this was 

withdrawn by the applicant to allow an opportunity to respond to comments made by the Victorian 

Society and the Council’s Conservation Officer 

Consultations 

Site notices were placed and neighbours were consulted by letter however no objections were 

received from members of the public. 

The Victorian Society raised a number of concerns as follows: 

• While the current proposals are an improvement on the earlier submission, the proposed use 

is fundamentally harmful to the special character of the church and conversion would have a 

severely negative impact on the listed building. 

• That the intensity of the proposed use, which are as intensive as we have seen anywhere in 

the country, would only be acceptable as a last resort. 

• Very limited full height space is to be retained. This will not allow any part of the nave 

arcades – key features of a basilican-plan building – to be read. 

• The 20 roof lights will irreversibly alter the appearance of the building. 

• There is near-complete loss of the interior and serious damage to the external appearance of 

the building. 

Lancashire County Council (Resources Directorate): requests financial contribution of £7,680 

towards Waste Management infrastructure. 

Lancashire County Council (Strategic): Would add to the oversupply of housing units but it could 

be argued to facilitate regeneration. Renewable Energy requirements. Ecological survey 

concerning bats. 

Lancashire County Council (Archaeology): Condition recommended concerning a photographic 

record of the building. 

29

Relevant Policies 


Policy 12 - Housing supply 

Policy 21 – Protection of Landscape and Heritage 


Policy E10 – Development Policies 

Policy E6 – Listed Buildings 

SPG: New Residential Development in the Borough 

Observations 

This application deals with the proposed renovation and re-use of one of Accrington’s most 

important landmark buildings. Located within the Accrington Town Centre Conservation Area on 

Cannon Street and approximately opposite the Conservative Club (also grade II listed) the Baptist 

Church and particularly its magnificent steeple form a recognisable part of the fabric of Accrington. 

Set within modest grounds and surrounded by protected trees the Church dates from 1873 and is of 

a typical sandstone wall and slate roof structure. In essence the external elevations have remained 

unchanged since the building was built but recent vacancy of the site has resulted in an increasingly 

tawdry appearance to the grounds and the building itself precipitated by instances of vandalism. 

The applicant proposes to re-use the church in constructing 16 residential apartments which raises a 

number of policy concerns principally relating to the proposed residential use and the listed context 

of the building. The possibility of other uses on the site, including a mixed residential/office 

scheme, have been explored with the applicants but they have indicated that they do not consider 

such a scheme as being viable. Firstly I can advise that the proposal is considered to be acceptable 

in terms of the Council’s adopted SPG on New Residential Development as it falls within one of 

the identified exceptions – the proposal would secure the future of a listed building within the 

conservation area. 

As the building is listed the authority also must consider the proposals against Policy E6 of the 

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan which secures that proposals which are harmful to the character of a 

listed building are not considered acceptable. Specifically the policy states that “the council will 

safeguard listed buildings and structures by strict control of development proposals in relation to 

the structure or development on neighbouring sites.” 

As detailed above it is clear that the Victorian Society in considering the proposals feel that the 

development as it stands has an unacceptable impact on the listed building. The comments of the 

Victorian Society carry significant weight and the proposals will clearly have a significant impact 

on both the internal layout and form of the building and, particularly with regard to the number of 

roof lights proposed, significantly impact on the external appearance of the building. 

While taking serious note of the views of the Victorian Society I consider that there are other issues 

which need to be weighed in the balance. In particular I would advise members that although 

residential use is recognized as an intensive use of such spaces I feel that the historic and 

inappropriate interventions which have already taken place within the church have already 

damaged the internal form of the building. I would suggest that internally significant harm has 

already been done to the internal layout of the church and that consequently further loss of the 

historic plan form would bring about little further damage to the special character of the church. 

30

While the form of the church has already been significantly damaged it is important to safeguard as 

far as possible the external appearance of the church both in terms of the listed building itself and in 

the context of the surrounding conservation area. The form, design and bulk of the existing 

building and the prominent church spire are all important elements in the conservation area. 

Although the applicant advises that surveys show the spire to be secure it would be hard to 

envisage a use other than residential which could support the maintenance of such a structure in the 

long term. Notwithstanding the above it is clear that the applicant and his agents have endeavoured 

to respond favourably to the initial comments of the Victorian Society and indeed have altered the 

scheme significantly to remove two thirds of all roof lights initially proposed and to include a full 

height entrance lobby which would allow the ongoing full height viewing of the stained glass 

window fronting Cannon Street and the installation of one of the pews. 

Overall my own assessment would recommend that this proposal be given favourable 

consideration. At the present time I have concerns about a number of important buildings with the 

Acc Town Centre Conservation Area. I am particularly mindful of recent thefts of building 

materials from the Conservative Club, which has been vacant for many years and is itself 

deteriorating. A future viable use for that building will not be easy to achieve. There has also been 

unauthorised access at the former Lar-de-dars nightclub, which has again been vacant for some 

time and is not in good condition. The former Opium Club on Willow Street has been seriously fire 

damaged and is presently disused. In these circumstances, although I recognize that this current 

scheme for the Baptist Church is not the most sympathetic approach to the listed building I would 

suggest that it is at least a deliverable and pragmatic approach to finding a sustainable permanent 

use for a difficult location which should be a priority. I consider that it is vital to see investment 

into these important buildings in the conservation area if the area is not to deteriorate. 











3 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of the cross-sections of 

the windows frames, conservation roof lights 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. 

31

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 


4 No vehicles, equipment or materials may enter the site, and no construction work may 

commence on site until protective fencing has been erected around the trees to be retained on site. 

All existing trees shown on the plans hereby approved as being retained on site shall be protected 

by fencing in accordance with BS5837:1991 'Trees In Relation To Construction', in accordance 

with a scheme and specification which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the 

local planning authority. Within the protected area(s) there shall not be carried out or permitted, 

during the construction period, any building or other operations, parking or passage of vehicles, or 

storage of building or other materials or any other object. 

Reason: To ensure that the trees on the site are protected during construction works in the interests 

of local amenity, and in order to comply with Policy E3 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 









6 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a survey shall be conducted 

by a competent person, to investigate whether the building is utilised by bats or any other protected 

species. Once complete the survey results shall be submitted to the local planning authority for 

assessment. If such a use is established then, before any works commence, the applicant shall 

submit a scheme to provide an alternative nesting/roosting site within the building to the local 

planning authority for approval. The approved scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of 

the local planning authority before any of the apartments hereby approved are first occupied. 

Reason: All species of bat are specially protected under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside 

Act 1981 (as amended). 

7 Prior to the commencement of development, hereby approved, a satisfactory photographic 

record of the building, details which shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall 

be made and deposited with the local planning authority. 

Reason: In order to maintain an archive record of this listed building prior to any alterations taking 

place. 




32

of Policies E6 and E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. There are no other material 


























________________________________________________________________________________ 

11/07/0694 

Cannon Street Baptist Church Cannon Street Accrington BB5 1NJ 

Listed Building Consent: Conversion of Church into 16 No. residential apartments including 

internal and external alterations (Resubmission 11/07/0390) 

Y & Y Developments Ltd 

Application 11/07/0692, the application for planning permission for this development is also before 

committee for consideration. All relevant information referring to this application for Listed 

Building Consent is as set out in the application for planning permission (11/07/0692) and therefore 

is not repeated here. 



33









3 Prior to the commencement of development, hereby approved, a satisfactory photographic 

record of the building, details which shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall 

be made and deposited with the local planning authority. 

Reason: In order to maintain an archive record of this listed building prior to any alterations taking 

place. 


the windows frames, conservation roof lights 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. 







of Policies E6 and E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. There are no other material 











34
















________________________________________________________________________________ 

11/07/0697 

Land at Back Lane Baxenden 

Erection of 3 No dwellings 

Mr A Sanderson 


The application site is located between the back street of properties on the eastern side of 

Manchester Road and Back Lane. Formerly the location was used for lock-ups and garages but is 

now predominantly vacant and characterised by an un-cared for appearance. The land has been 

neglected in recent times and become the subject of persistent vandalism and unauthorised access. 

There is a terrace of mainly houses on Manchester Road, but including a number of commercial 

properties, to the south-west. There are more residential properties across Back Lane on Shelley 

Drive. To the south-east there is a vacant site and playground. 


The applicant seeks to establish permission for three detached, three-bedroom, two-storey 

properties but with a third bedroom accommodated within the roof space. One access cul-de-sac is 

proposed from Back Lane. The applicant has used the triangular shape of the plot to off-set the 

orientations of the proposed dwellings and thus, although in close proximity to each other, achieve 

adequate levels of privacy. In terms of design the applicant has demonstrated an appreciation of the 

surrounding vernacular and detailed natural coursed stone as well as traditional detailings such as 

stone heads, sills and jambs around the windows to all elevations. 


There is no planning history with this site. 

35

Consultations 

Lancashire County Council (Highways): Any comments will be reported at the committee 

meeting. 

Neighbours were consulted by letter and one letter was received in reply, while not objecting to the 

proposals, raising concerns as follows: 

• That during construction access may be blocked to the rear yards of Manchester Road. 

• That the junction of Back Lane and Southwood Drive may be blocked during construction. 

• Potential loss of amenity during construction. 



Policy 12 – Housing 



Policy H2 – Housing infill 

SPG on New Residential Developments in the Borough 

Observations 

The applicant seeks to erect three new dwellings in a discreet residential location within the urban 

area. The site is currently a vacant plot formerly used for garages and lock-ups but now cleared to 

prevent repeated break-ins and vandalism. 

The application raises a number of policy concerns; foremost with regard to the Council’s adopted 

SPG on New Residential Development. To that end I can confirm that the identified exception 

allowing for infill development up to five units would be applicable in this instance. Consequently 

the main issue for the Council’s consideration in this matter is the design of the proposed 

dwellings, access, any impact on the amenity of surrounding residents and any other issues raised 

by objectors. 

With regard to the design of the development I can confirm that the proposal represents an 

acceptable response to the environment presented and is particularly satisfactory in its use of 

natural stone throughout. Although the proposed does show hipped roofs on the dwellings, which 

are not typical of the area, it is felt that these would provide a satisfactory transition from the 

sharper ridges and more significant massing of the terraced properties on Manchester Road to the 

lower, less densely developed bungalow properties off Southwood Drive and would consequently 

be acceptable. Adequate levels of privacy are identified throughout and parking is considered to be 

sufficient for the area and the type of resident that such properties might expect to attract. I would 

therefore advise that the proposal conforms to Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

The dwellings have been carefully orientated to minimise overlooking between the dwellings 

themselves and between the new dwellings and other surrounding properties. Amendments have 

been made to windows to reduce overlooking. Each dwelling will have two off-street paring 

36

spaces. The proposals are therefore acceptable in terms of Policy H2 of the Hyndburn Borough 

Local Plan. 

One letter has been received raising issues principally with the development phase of any scheme 

which may be approved, citing concerns over adequate access to the rear of yards on Manchester 

Road and around the wider area in general. In the main this is not a planning consideration in that 

no developer has any right to obstruct the adjoining highways including the back street. Such 

concerns should not prevent the approval of this application which will be a significant 

environmental improvement to the area although conditions can be imposed concerning hours of 

construction and the requirement for wheelwashing facilities. In the light of the above arguments 

and in the absence of any other considerations which weigh significantly against the proposal I 

recommend the application for approval. 











3 The development hereby approved shall not commence until plans of the site showing details of 

the existing and proposed ground levels, proposed finished floor levels, levels of any paths, drives, 

garages and parking areas and the height of any retaining walls within the development site have 

been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall 

thereafter be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details. 

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out at suitable levels in relation to adjoining 

properties and highways in accordance with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 







the windows 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. 

37






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. 











8 Before any of the dwellings hereby approved is first occupied, fences and walls of a height and 

type to be approved in writing by the local planning authority shall be erected on the site as 

indicated on the approved plan. 

Reason: In order to secure a complete and satisfactory form of development in particular having 

regard to the amenities of the adjacent residential properties, and in order to comply with Policy 

E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

9 No construction work, construction traffic or operation of any plant/machinery shall take place 

on the site during the course of the development hereby approved except between the hours of 0700 

hours and 1700 hours Monday to Saturday. No construction work, construction traffic or operation 

of any plant/machinery shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays. 

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

10 Before any construction or engineering works commence on site details of facilities for the 

washing of the wheels of vehicles before leaving the site shall be submitted to and approved in 

writing by the local planning authority. The approved facilities shall be installed before any 

engineering or construction work commences on site and shall be retained for the full construction 

period. 

Reason To avoid the possibility of the public highway being affected by the deposit of mud and/or 

loose materials which could create a potential hazard to road users. 

38




of Policies H2 and E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan and the Council's Supplementary 

Planning Guidance on New Residential Developments in the Borough. There are no other material 


























________________________________________________________________________________ 

11/07/0711 

10 Paynter Close Clayton Le Moors Accrington BB5 5WY 

Erection of conservatory to rear 

Mr & Mrs Richardson 


The property is a detached residence in a cul-de-sac of a residential neighbourhood and is 

surrounded on all sides by other detached houses. 

39


The application proposes the erection of a rear conservatory, projecting 3.5m beyond the rear wall 

of the property and extending 3.5m across the back width of the property. At the rear of the 

application property there is a 1.8m high wooden fence all the way round the rear garden. The 

garden slopes down towards the rear fence and there is approx 0.6m drop to the adjoining 

properties on Moorside Drive. 


Nil. 

Consultations 

Neighbour Consultations: 1 Letter of objection raising the following points. 

• The slope of the site means the conservatory will be at a higher level than their property, 

this combined with the extension towards the rear boundary will cause overlooking and 

invasion of privacy. 


Hyndburn Borough Council Local Plan 

Policy E10- Development policies 

Observations 

The proposed development is in line with the design guidelines for conservatories and the general 

practice used in the borough for the assessment of such applications. The facing materials to be 

used will match the existing house. The conservatory will project 3.5 metres from the rear wall of 

the house. Appropriate distances have been left between the proposed development and the 

neighbouring properties at each side, in particular in view of the 1.8m high perimeter fence 

surrounding the rear garden. The design is acceptable in terms of policy and does not warrant any 

amendments. 

There was originally a distance of 21.5m between the rear walls of the application property and 

those houses on Moorside Drive to the rear. With the erection of the proposed conservatory and the 

existing conservatory at 15 Moorside Drive this distance will reduce to approximately 15 metres. 

However, even with the addition of the two conservatories, the distance retained between the 

properties remains sufficient in particular as these are only single storey extensions. 

However, there is a sloping drop of approximately 0.6m between No 15 Moorside Drive and the 

applicant’s house. I do not believe that this drop will mean that the conservatory will have a 

significantly negative impact on the neighbour’s amenities, cause overlooking or invasion of 

privacy. The fence, along with the distances retained between the properties means there is little 

chance of overlooking or an overtly negative impact on the residents of No. 15 Moorside Drive. 

The objectors will be able to see the top part of the conservatory but this alone is not sufficient to 

refuse planning permission. I therefore recommend the application for conditional approval. 

40











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. 























41










________________________________________________________________________________ 

11/07/0719 

Land at junction of Town Hall Street and Game Street Great Harwood Blackburn 

Demolition of derelict building and erection of two-storey office building with 

accommodation in roof space (Resubmission 11/07/0530) 

K & K Estates 


This application relates to a site measuring approximately 110m² located at the junction of Town 

Hall Street and Game Street. The site has frontages of 10m to both streets and is currently 

occupied by a single storey building which is now vacant but was previously used as a vehicle 

depot. 

There is an electricity sub station immediately to the west of the site, with residential properties 

beyond, and residential properties to the south on the opposite side of Game Street. Land to the 

north is currently vacant, but has planning permission for the erection of nine flats, and the land to 

the east is used as a skate park. 


The application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing building on the site and the 

erection of an office building which would be two-storey with accommodation in the roof space. 


11/07/0530 Demolition of derelict building and erection of two storey office building with attic. 

Withdrawn 24.9.2007. 

Consultations 

Lancashire County Council (Highways): No objections, developer to bear cost of footway 

resurfacing. 

Neighbouring properties notified/site notice displayed: One letter of objection has been received 

from the occupier of a property on Game Street, raising the following points: 

42

• This three storey office block would block off the light at the front of her property, which is 

directly opposite. As the property is a small terraced house, the front is the main part of the 

house. 

• Windows in the offices would be directly opposite her bedroom window and will affect her 

privacy. 

• The development would not be in character with other properties on Game Street. 




Observations 

The key issues for consideration in this case are the acceptability of the proposal in policy terms, 

the design, appearance and scale of the proposed development, its impact on the character and 

appearance of the area, and the impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents. 

The site lies within an area of mixed use, including residential, retail, office and recreational uses, 

and has been used in the past for storage/industrial purposes. It lies within the shopping area of 

Great Harwood as defined in the Proposals Map of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. Office uses 

are considered appropriate within town centre sites such as this, and Planning Policy Statement 6: 

Planning for Town Centres encourages the more efficient use of land and buildings within town 

centres through redevelopment where appropriate. The scheme involves the provision of 240m² of 

office space over three floors, with an estimated 12 staff to be employed at the premises. In my 

opinion, the proposed development is acceptable in principle in policy terms, and would bring 

welcome investment into the town centre. 

The footprint of the proposed building would measure 10m x 9-10m, slightly larger than that of the 

existing building on the site. The existing building is single-storey with a flat roof 3.7m high, 

whilst the proposed building would be two-storey with accommodation in the roof space and a 

ridge height of 10.2m. Although the residential properties to the south and immediately to the west 

of the site are two-storey, there are existing three-storey properties in the town centre, including 

nearby properties on Game Street/Blackburn Road, and the adjoining site on Town Hall Street has 

planning permission for a three-storey development of flats with a maximum height 1m higher than 

proposed in this scheme. In my opinion, in terms of streetscape, the scale of the development is not 

excessive in this town centre location. 

The proposed building would be constructed of artificial stone and slate, with detailing of stone 

quoins and parapet coping. In design and appearance it would be appropriate in this location and 

would positively enhance the character and appearance of the area. 

There are residential properties directly across Game Street and also to the west of the site, beyond 

the sub station. The minimum separation distance to the properties across Game Street is 11m, 

which is the same separation between the existing residential properties on the opposite sides of 

Game Street. There would be some loss of amenity to the occupiers of the Game Street properties 

due to the limited separation distance and the height of the proposed building, but in my opinion 

this would not be of sufficient degree to warrant refusal. The scheme has been designed to include 

only high-level windows facing onto the Game Street properties and onto the new flat development 

to the rear, and this would prevent overlooking. The proposal is likely to result in some increased 

43

activity in the immediate area, but given the town centre location this would not have a significant 

impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents. 











3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the amended 

plans nos. M2564-03A & M2564-05A received on 13 December 2007. 








the windows frames 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. 









44

























5 The applicant is advised that the footway resurfacing work will be undertaken by Lancashire 

County Council, the highway authority, at the developer's cost. Arrangements should be made by 

contacting Lancashire County Council Highways Hyndburn, Willows Lane depot, Willows Lane, 

Accrington, BB5 0RT 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

11/07/0728 

9 Lindadale Avenue Accrington BB5 0NG 

Erection of two storey side and single store rear extensions 

Mr N Khan 


This application relates to a semi-detached located on the eastern side of Lindadale Avenue, 

Accrington in an area which is wholly residential in character. 


The application proposes the erection of a two-storey side extension which would project 2.4 

metres from the existing main side wall and replace a smaller single storey side extension. The 

45

front elevation of the proposed extension has been detailed to be set back by 1.0 metres from the 

front elevation at first floor level with a canopy roof proposed over the ground floor. The proposal 

also includes a single storey rear extension along the full width of the building (7.55 metres wide) 

and projecting 3m out from the rear main wall of the house. 

The proposed extensions will provide extra kitchen and living accommodation at ground floor level 

with two further bedrooms at first floor level. The facing and roofing materials are to match those 

on the existing house. 


Nil 

Consultations 

Head of Environmental Health – Requires condition relating to the incorporation of a gas proof 

membrane to prevent protection against the ingress of landfill gas. 

Neighbours notified – 1 letter received making the following comments: 

• The building work they are asking to be done will take the light from both my dining room 

and kitchen. 

• I also have a new baby on the way, and building work is going to disrupt any routine the 

baby may have due to noise levels. 

• Parking is already an issue on this street and if building work was to commence, due to the 

extra vehicles this would involved, parking would then be impossible. 


Hyndburn Borough Local Plan: 

Policy E10 – Scale, density, design 

Observations 

The key issues for the Council’s consideration in this case are the design and appearance of the 

proposed extension, its impact upon the character of the area, and in particular the potential that the 

approval may result in a proliferation of such designs which could create a “terracing effect” and 

significantly alter the character of the area. In addition any impact on neighbouring properties and 

loss of car space needs to be considered. 

The Council’s design guidance for side extensions to semi-detached dwellings requires that the first 

floor of a two-storey side extension is set back by 2 metres from the front elevation. This is 

required in order to ensure that there is no unacceptable impact on the general street scene by the 

inappropriate linking up of house frontages to create a terrace effect. The first floor of the side 

extension of this scheme is set back by 1 metre but the properties on this avenue comprise a 

mixture of semi-detached houses and a row of quasi semi-detached houses which are at different 

angles and as a result there is no potential for linking up of house frontages I therefore consider that 

the 1 metre setback is acceptable in terms of maintaining the appearance of separation between 

houses. 

46

The single storey rear extension projects 3 metres from the rear main wall of the house and this is 

generally considered to be acceptable in design terms and similar in size to many other extensions 

which benefit from Permitted Development rights or which have previously been approved by the 

authority. 

There is currently no off-road parking provided at the property so there is no loss of off-road 

parking as a result of the proposal. 

The adjoining neighbours have raised concerns relating to the proposed single storey rear extension 

which they feel will take light from the rear windows of their house. The orientation of the 

properties is such that the application property is north of the objectors’ dwelling. It was my view 

that the length of the extension is acceptable and similar to many others approved in the Borough 

and due to the orientation will have little impact on the neighbour in terms of light or 

overshadowing. 

In view of the above I consider that the proposal is acceptable in terms of design and appearance, 

its impact upon neighbours and the character of the area. 















4 The proposed development is near to a former landfill site. Therefore a ground slab and gas 

proof membrane of minimum 1200g thickness shall be incorporated into the foundations in order to 

provide adequate protection against the ingress of landfill gas. The membrane shall be: 

i. laid carefully so as to avoid tears or perforations 

ii. well-lapped and taped at the joints and 

iii. continuous across the whole area of the new development 

Reason: In the interests of safety having regard to the proximity of the site to a former landfill site 

and in order to comply with Policies E2 and E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

47






























________________________________________________________________________________ 

48

11/07/0733 

Whinney Hill Garage Whinney Hill Road Accrington 

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of two new units for use as builders' general 

stores with ancillary office accommodation (Resubmission 11/07/0411) 

Mr T Allsop 


The site is located in Huncoat on the southern side of Whinney Hill Road and on the eastern side of 

its junction with Bolton Avenue. Although nominally considered to be part of Huncoat Industrial 

Estate the site itself fronts entirely onto Whinney Hill Road and is roughly opposite residential 

properties on that same road. The site effectively backs onto the eastern side of Huncoat Industrial 

estate but is separated by a culverted stream and a number of existing trees. There is currently on 

site one single storey building, totalling approximately 93 m 2 , which is somewhat dilapidated. 

Although the property benefits from an established general industrial use and has most recently 

been used as a car repair garage, the site is currently vacant. 


The applicant seeks permission to demolish the existing building and proposes its replacement with 

two conjoined units to a larger footprint (318 m 2 ) with associated access, parking spaces and 

security fencing. The proposal before committee is a resubmission of an earlier application 

(11/07/0411) which was withdrawn by the applicant to allow him to respond to the comments and 

concerns of the highway authority. Consequently rather than proposing a building which would 

have a general industrial use the applicant has endeavoured to define the proposal as specifically 

for a builder’s store and no other use. 


There is one application of significance relating to this proposal. Application 11/07/0411 which 

was withdrawn to allow amendments as detailed above 

Consultations 

Environment Agency: raised no objection subject to a number of conditions, relating to the 

discharge of foul water and the treatment of the boundary of the neighbouring water course, being 

imposed. 

Lancashire County Council (highway authority): no objections subject to a condition to restrict the 

proposed use to that described and no other. 

Head of Environmental Health: no issues were so significant that permission should be with held 

but advised that any grant of permission should be on condition that a formal site investigation and 

sampling strategy be submitted. 

National Grid (Transco): identified that although the proposed is in close proximity to pipe lines 

they would not be directly affected. That noted they would require the applicant to make early 

contact to ensure safe working practices and to abide with appropriate restrictions and regulations. 

Health and Safety Executive: does not advise against. 

Neighbours were consulted by letter and 3 letters of objection were received in reply. It should be 

noted that the earlier application also attracted objection amounting to 1 letter and a petition 

endorsed by five signatories. The following issues were raised: 

49

• The proposed new buildings would be obtrusive to residents nearby by virtue of its 

proximity and excessive height. 

• The introduction of a new, larger building in this location would more formally link the 

residential properties in this area to the industrial estate. 

• The proposed removal of trees in the area would result in a corresponding loss of amenity 

for residents. 

• The proposed access to and from the site would result in unacceptable manoeuvring of 

vehicles along Whinney Hill Road. 

• The proposed opening times would result in a detriment to nearby residents. 

• There is a bus stop where the entrance to the site is proposed. 

• The proposal would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic in the area. 

• The intensification of an industrial use in this area could result in a loss of amenity due to 

noise, dust and disturbance. 

• The proposal as submitted represents an overdevelopment of the site. 

• The proposed may affect the adjacent utilities pipes. 




Policy I2 – Redevelopment of existing employment sites 

Observations 

This application deals with the proposed demolition and rebuilding of a property known as 

Whinney Hill Garage located at the junction of Bolton Avenue and Whinney Hill Road in Huncoat. 

This proposal relates to an area of land which has an established general industrial use and which 

has been such for some considerable time. As such, although currently vacant, the principle of 

industrial development in this location should not be considered controversial; rather the key issue 

for the committee to consider is whether the proposed represents an overdevelopment or too 

intensive use of the site and whether as proposed the amenities of nearby residents are unacceptably 

harmed. Policy I2 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan states that proposals to redevelop existing 

employment sites will normally be permitted providing that adequate provision is made for 

servicing, access, car parking, landscaping, noise and smoke/dust emissions. Proposals which 

adversely affect residential areas will not normally be permitted. 

Lancashire Highways (Hyndburn), the highway authority, in responding to the applicant’s earlier 

application identified that the scheme, because of the open ended nature of the industrial use 

proposed, represented an overdevelopment of the available site which, depending on which use 

materialised, could result in an inadequate composition of servicing and parking for the units 

proposed. The developer acknowledged this and worked towards accord with highway authority; 

consequently in this resubmission the use of the site has been more tightly defined. As such 

Lancashire Highways (Hyndburn) consider that the proposal demonstrates adequate highway 

conditions and does not object as long as any approval be conditioned to restrict the use and that the 

developer be required to enter in to Section 278 Agreement with Lancashire County Council to 

secure the necessary alterations to pavements and the nearby bus shelter. Although objectors 

consider that there are poor traffic conditions in this area, it should be noted that the site presently 

50

has an established use for an industrial use and thus such matters relating to the intensity of traffic 

generated by the proposal should not be an impediment to approving this scheme. 

Objectors argue that the proposal would result in a detriment to their amenities by virtue of the size 

and location of the building. Although the proposed is in no way exceptional in terms of design 

neither is it wholly inappropriate for the area. In my view while the proposed building is somewhat 

higher than the existing buildings the new construction would be sufficiently distant and offset 

from neighbouring residential properties so as not to cause a disproportionate loss of amenity 

compared to the existing site which is dilapidated and often fly tipped. As such I would not suggest 

that alone such issues would be adequate to maintain a refusal of this proposal. 

Secondly the objectors identify that the redevelopment of this site would result in a more formal 

link between the residential areas of Huncoat and the existing industrial estate. This seems to be 

more a representation regarding the existing land uses than an objection to the proposals. The site 

as it stands could be re-opened and put to a significantly more intensive use, with much the same 

effect as cited by the objectors, and without application to this authority. As such I do not consider 

that this is an adequate reason for refusal. 

Thirdly the objectors claim that the loss of trees associated with this proposal should be reason for 

refusal. It would highlight however that the trees are not protected by a Tree Preservation Order 

and could be removed in their entirety without application to this authority. Although any 

unnecessary loss of trees is unacceptable I would suggest that any losses proposed in this case 

should not be impediment to the future use of an existing industrial site. 

A number of the objectors concerns regarding this proposal relate to loss of amenity due to opening 

times, noise, dust, and disturbance, and associated traffic. Although relevant concerns it is 

important to note that the proposed site has an existing industrial use which could significantly 

intensify without application to this authority. Consequently I consider that such concerns do not 

provide adequate grounds for refusal of this proposal but it may be appropriate to condition 

appropriate opening hours for the proposed development. 

The proposal represents the redevelopment of an established industrial site which is relatively close 

to residential properties on the opposite side of Whinney Hill Road. I consider that the design and 

layout of the building is satisfactory. The highway authority is satisfied, with appropriate 

conditions, that the development will not adversely affect highway safety. Bearing in mind the 

existing use of the site I consider that the proposals are acceptable, comply with Policy I2 of the 

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan and I recommend that the scheme be approved. 








51









4 Prior to the commencement of the development full details of all surfacing materials to be used 

on all hard-surfaced areas of the development outside the buildings shall be submitted to and 

approved in writing by the local planning authority. 





Development) Order 1995 the building shall be used for no other purpose other than that permitted 

by this approval. 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety as other uses may not be acceptable in this location and 

in order to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 











7 The working hours within the site shall be confined to the period from 07.30 hours to 18.00 

hours Mondays to Fridays and 09.00 hours to 15.00 hours on Saturdays only. No work shall take 

place at the premises on Sundays or Public Holidays. 

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

8 The development, hereby approved, shall not begin until the new vehicular accesses have been 

laid out and constructed to base course in accordance with details to be agreed with the local 

planning authority in consultation with the Highways Authority. The accesses shall thereafter be 

completed in accordance with the approved plans before any part of the development is brought 

into use and retained thereafter. 

52

Reason: To ensure that suitable access is available in the interest of highway safety and in order to 

comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

9 No goods/materials shall be stored on the site other than in the units shown on the approved plan 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the site in the interests of local visual amenity and 

to comply with Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

10 No development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has 

been approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such a scheme shall be constructed and 

completed in accordance with the approved plans and maintained thereafter. 

Reason: To ensure satisfactory means of drainage 

11 No development shall take place until a scheme for the boundary treatment adjacent to the 

watercourse has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such as 

scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and maintained thereafter. 

Reason: To protect ecological, recreation and amenity interests by providing a buffer between the 

development and the watercourse. 

12 Before the development hereby approved is first brought into use the car parking areas shall be 


planning authority. The car park shall be made available at all times that the premises are in use for 

the parking of staff and visitors' cars. 


the interests of the safety of users of the highway and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the 

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 















53
















5 Whinney Hill is a highway maintainable at the public expense and the works of alteration that 

are necessary to improve the existing vehicular accesses to the site must be specified by and carried 

out in accordance with the requirements of the Highway Authority. Lancashire County Council 

intends to exercise its powers to carry out these works and before they can be started the developer 

must contact The Head of Engineering Services, Lancashire Highways Hyndburn, Willows Lane 

Depot, Willows Lane, Accrington BB5 ORT. The costs of these works will be charged to the 

developer . 

6 Any works to watercourses within or adjacent to the site which involve infilling, diversion, 

culverting or which may otherwise restrict flow, require prior formal consent of the Environment 

Agency under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. Culverting other than for access purposes 

is unlikely to receive consent, without full mitigation for loss of flood storage and habitats. 

7 Surface water from yard areas, loading and unloading areas and any other areas likely to be 

contaminated by spillage should be connected to the foul sewer. The formal consent of United 

Utilities will be required. In the absence of a sewerage system, such drainage must go to tanks with 

no discharge to the watercourse. 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

11/07/0738 

Former Garage Site Pansy Street South Accrington 

Erection of 5 No two-storey terraced housing with parking to rear 

Great Places Housing Group 


The application site is a former garage site on the corner of Pansy Street South and Eccles Street. 

The area is primarily residential with a mix of terraced two-storey and single storey bungalow 

properties. There are terraced properties on the opposite side of Pansy Street South facing the site 

and also, adjoining the site, to the south and to the east across a back street. To the north, across 

54

Eccles Street is a row of bungalows. The site is in a sustainable location within the urban boundary 

and close to Accrington town centre. 


The applicant seeks permission to erect five terraced properties facing onto Pansy Street South in a 

vernacular style offering three bedrooms and parking to the rear. The site slopes gently down from 

north to south and the houses would be stepped to reflect the slope. 


Of particular relevance is the most recent approval granted (11/93/0411) on this site which 

established the principle of residential development in this location although that permission has 

now lapsed. 

11/90/0730 Outline application: residential development. Withdrawn. 

11/91/0213 Outline application: erection of four houses. Approved conditionally 17/07/91. 

11/91/0451 Erection of 12 no. flats. Withdrawn. 

11/93/0081 Erection of 10 self-contained flats. Refused 21/04/93. 

11/93/0411 Erection of ten flats. Approved conditionally 24/11/93. 

Consultations 

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

Lancashire County Council (Highways): Any comments will be reported at the committee meeting. 

Neighbours were consulted by letter and 3 letters of objection were received in reply. The 

following issues were raised: 

• The proposal could perpetuate parking concerns. 

• The proposed houses would be out of keeping with the existing. 

• That approval would be inconsistent with previous refusals for residential development on 

this site. 

• Loss of amenity on a quiet residential street by increased coming and going. 

• Potential impact of noise during construction. 




Policy H2 – Housing infill 

SPG New Residential Development in the Borough 

Joint Lancashire Structure Plan: 

Policy 12 – Housing developments 

Observations 

This application deals with the proposed erection of five terraced properties on a vacant, former 

garage site in a residential area of Accrington. The scheme is acceptable in policy terms as it meets 

55

an identified exception within the authority’s adopted SPG on New Residential Development - it 

proposes only 5 units on an infill plot. As the site is within the urban boundary and located within 

an established residential area in an adequately sustainable location the proposed residential 

development of the site is acceptable in principle, subject to design and amenity issues and any 

other material considerations. 

In terms of design I can advise that the proposed demonstrates an acceptable approach to the 

development of the site. The applicant has identified a scheme which will maintain the existing 

street layout and the structure of the wider residential area by following the identified building line 

of neighbouring residential properties. Further more the proposed achieves a satisfactory frontage 

by reflecting appropriately the traditional proportions of Accrington’s terraces and including 

complementary detailing such as heavy sills and jambs around the windows. The units would be 

constructed using artificial stone with slate roofs. As such I consider that the proposal would fit 

comfortably within the street scene and would benefit neighbour amenity by removing a potentially 

problematic vacant site. Although close to the town centre the applicant has ensured that the new 

units will benefit from parking at a ratio of at least 1 space per unit. 

As with many small infill plots in terraced areas it is not possible to achieve the normally desirable 

distances between dwellings of 21m and 15m and still to develop the site. There will be an 

adequate distance (16.5m) between the existing properties on the north side of Eccles Street and the 

gable end of the new terrace (15m being the normal guideline). A distance of 18.5m (compared 

with the normal guideline of 21m) is achievable across the back street to the main rear walls of 

houses on Westwood Street, while only 14m can be achieved across Pansy Street South at the front 

of the proposed houses. While the first two of these distances are adequate I am concerned about 

the 14m distance at the frontage of the properties. However, on balance I consider that the 

advantages of dealing with this vacant plot, bearing in mind the high quality general design of the 

development outweigh any loss of amenity from overlooking between dwellings. 

As noted above the proposal has attracted a number of objections from residents principally voicing 

concerns regarding parking at the site. It is worth noting that two of the objectors are not directly 

affected by the proposals living further south along Pansy Street South. Only one of the writers 

lives directly opposite the site. I consider that the applicant has demonstrated an acceptable 

approach to parking in this location and should not be required to provide in excess of 1 space per 

unit. It would be difficult envisage that an acceptable development of this site could be achieved if 

a higher parking requirement were to be imposed. I would not consider that this proposal would 

add unduly to the stresses placed upon the amenities of immediate neighbours or that of the wider 

area. 

Consequently I consider that the proposed is satisfactory with regard to the adopted development 

plan and recommend approval of the scheme. 






56







the windows 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. 














5 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. 








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. 

57



8 No construction work, construction traffic or operation of any plant/machinery shall take place 

on the site during the course of the development hereby approved except between the hours of 0700 

hours and 1700 hours Monday to Saturday. No construction work, construction traffic or operation 

of any plant/machinery shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays. 

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

9 Before the development hereby approved is first brought into use the car parking spaces shall be 


planning authority. The parking areas shall be made available at all times that the premises are in 

use for the parking of cars. 


the interests of the safety of users of the highway and in order to comply with Policy E10 of the 

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 




of Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning 

Guidance on New Residential Developments in the Borough. There are no other material 



















58








________________________________________________________________________________ 

11/07/0755 

75 Brantwood Avenue Knuzden BB1 3LY 

Erection of extension to existing hipped roof to form gable 

Mr J Holt 


This semi-detached bungalow is situated on the east side of Brantwood Avenue, Knuzden in an 

area which is entirely residential in character. To the rear of the bungalow, to the east, are open 

fields and the M65 motorway, within the Green Belt. 


The erection of a roof extension to gable to create space for loft conversion. The roofing and facing 

materials to match the existing. 


Nil 

Consultations 

Neighbours notified – 1 letter received making the following comments 

• I do not think it is in keeping with the area of bungalows. Loft conversions around here are 

in front and rear of the bungalows. This extension is a gable end making it into a semidetached 

house. I overlook this and don’t want to look out on a wall. 

• When my husband passed away I chose to move and live in a nice area if I had wanted to 

live so near to something like this extension I would have got a house not a bungalow. 




Observations 

This semi-detached bungalow currently has a hipped gable roof. The applicant wishes to extend the 

roof to create a gable in order to provide space within the roof for a loft conversion. The most 

59

common way of providing roof space for conversion is by the erection of dormers and other 

bungalows on this estate have been extended in this way. 

A neighbour has objected to the proposal on the grounds that it will have an impact on her outlook 

and that the proposed extension will make the bungalow more like a house. The side elevation of 

the objector’s bungalow is approximately 6 metres away across two driveways and that elevation 

contains windows to habitable rooms. There is a difference in levels between the application 

property and the neighbour of approximately 1 metre, with the neighbour’s property being the 

higher. In addition, the application property is to the north of the objector’s bungalow. This means 

that the objector’s side windows will overlook the new gable. The original scheme proposed a 

window in the gable facing the neighbour’s property but due to the potential for overlooking this 

has now been removed and replaced by the insertion of two roof lights to the front elevation and 

one to the rear to provide a means of escape in order to comply with the Building Regulations. 

In design terms I consider the extension of the roof in the way proposed a more satisfactory 

solution to providing additional accommodation than the erection of dormers. As the neighbour’s 

property is south of the proposed extension then there will be no loss of light. The gable of the 

proposed extension will no doubt be higher than the current sloping roof but no closer and it is my 

view that as the objector’s property is higher than the neighbours the impact will be minimal. On 

balance, therefore, I consider that the proposed extension is acceptable. 











3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the amended 

plan 20:07:820:1a Rev A received on 13 December 2007. 






60






























________________________________________________________________________________ 

61

THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL (Cat A) 

11/07/0186 

Browfield Farm Back Lane Baxenden Accrington BB5 2RE 

Raise roof level to side extension and erection of porch to rear to form new dwelling 

P Ashburner 

This application was originally on the agenda for the Committee meeting on the 18 th July 2007 but, 

at the request of the applicant, was deferred. The applicant has now requested that the application 

be considered by the committee. The application was previously reported as set out below. 

Additional information submitted subsequently is set out at the end of the original report. 


The application relates to a detached farm house on the western side Back Lane in Baxenden. The 

house is located alongside the road (Back Lane) and the surrounding area is rural in nature, with the 

poultry farm, with its own dedicated dwelling, immediately across the road from the site. The 

property’s immediate residential neighbours are located on raised land to the north-west and also 

down a steep slope to the west where Greengates Cottage, Browfield Cottage and Baxenden Fold 

are located. All these properties are located outside the urban area and within the greenbelt. 


The proposed porch extension is located at the rear of the former “granny flat” and the proposal 

also involves raising the roof of the existing side extension on the north-eastern end of the property, 

to create a second floor. The proposed development intends to enlarge the existing granny flat to 

create a three bedroomed house to be used as a home for the applicant’s daughter and son-in-law in 

the event of their having to vacate the house attached to the adjoining poultry farm. 


11/82/0195 Retention of re-built shippon and use as granny flat. A/C 11.10.82 

Consultations 

No response from neighbour consultations. 



Policy E10- Development policies 

Policy S1- Greenbelt policies. 

Appendix One: Conversion of buildings in the countryside 

Joint Lancashire Structure Plan: 

Policy 12 – Housing provision 

Policy 1 Development Framework 

Policy 6 Green belts 

62

SPG New Residential developments in the Borough 

Observations 

Planning permission was originally granted in 1982 (11/82/0195) to use this part of the main 

dwelling as a ‘granny’ flat. Condition 3 of that permission states clearly, 

“The residential accommodation hereby approved shall only be used as a ‘granny’ flat 

annex to the existing farm house dwelling and shall not be used as a separate unit of 

accommodation.” 

The reason for this original grant of planning permission was to allow minimum accommodation in 

order to meet the applicant’s specific family circumstances pertaining at the time. The property 

provided a home for elderly relatives who required some element of family care or support and as 

such the proposal complied with policy. 

This current application was originally submitted simply as an extension to the dwelling but the 

internal layout of the extended building was in effect a completely separate, two-storey, threebedroomed 

dwelling. The applicant has made slight amendments to the internal layout to introduce 

a door through to an adjoining garage. However the development as shown on the submitted plans 

would still form a separate unit of accommodation and the applicant confirms that it would be used 

as accommodation for his daughter and son-in-law. As such the application needs to be assessed 

against the Council’s policies on housing provision. 

The creation of a separate dwelling conflicts with the original condition attached to the planning 

permission. In addition, the proposed development is located within the greenbelt, development of 

this type within the green belt is restricted to buildings for agriculture, forestry, outdoor sport or 

recreation. The proposal to create a separate dwelling at the site conflicts with that Policy 1 of the 

Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. The proposal also fails to meet the criteria set out in Policy 2 of the 

local plan which deals with the conversion of existing buildings in that substantial extensions are 

required to form the new dwelling. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 1 and 2 of the 

local plan. 

In monitoring consents for new housing it is apparent that in relation to the housing provision 

figure given in Policy 12 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan, there is an over supply of provision 

for new housing, which led the Council to adopt, in November 2003, Supplementary Planning 

Guidance (SPG) for New Residential Development in Hyndburn. The SPG states that applications 

for residential development will not be permitted unless a developer is able to demonstrate 

exceptional circumstances. The list of exceptions was increased from July 2006. The application 

site is outside the urban area and the exceptions listed in the SPG refer only to developments within 

the urban boundary. Guideline 2 of the SPG makes it clear that developments outside the urban 

area will not be approved if they contribute to the oversupply of houses. 

There is currently adequate provision of sites with planning permission for residential development 

on brownfield sites within the urban area and there is no need to release sites outside the urban area 

for development. 

I have no objections to the design of the extensions which do not impact on any neighbouring 

properties and would not adversely affect the character of the area. However, in view of the 

conflict with greenbelt and housing policies I recommend refusal of the application. 

63

Additional information since 18 th July 2007 

Since the application was deferred I have received an e-mail from a local resident supporting the 

applicant. The writer states that, while he was not aware of the detail of the scheme, he accepts that 

“whatever it was, it would not have eroded the common good”. 

I have also received two letters. The first letter states: 

• A separate dwelling is not required. 

• We have asked the Planning Department for advice on how to extend the granny flat which 

is too small for any current use. 

• The existing flat is separated from the existing dwelling by a door. The enlarged structure 

would be similarly separated by a door into the existing garage. How does this make it a 

separate dwelling? 

• Various amendments could be made to this part of the property including the removal of the 

garage which would remove hazardous reversing movements. 

The second letter adds the following information: 

• The proposals will provide a small retirement cottage for Mr and Mrs Ashburner as the 

present farmhouse has six bedrooms. 

• Only a small amount of building work is required – raising a section of the roof – and this 

will be within the existing footprint of the building. 

• There have been no objections from any neighbours. 


Refuse for the following reasons: 

Reasons for refusal 

1 The proposed development is located within the Green belt as defined in the Hyndburn Borough 

Local Plan. Within the Green Belt planning permission will not be given except in very special 

circumstances for development other than for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, outdoor sport 

and recreation, cemeteries and institutions standing in extensive grounds, or other uses appropriate 

to a rural area. 

Therefore the proposed development is contrary to Policy 6 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan 

and Policies S1, S2 and Appendix One of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. The proposal 

constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the applicant has not put forward 

sufficient very special circumstances as to why this policy should be set aside. 

2 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. In addition, the formation of an additional dwelling outside the urban area 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. 

Therefore there is not a need to allow this development at the present time. 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

64

11/07/0707 

3 Tottleworth Rishton Blackburn BB1 4AN 

Erection of single storey extension 

Mr D Port 


The property the subject of this application is a mid-terraced house, one of a row of four, located in 

the south-western part of Tottleworth village. The property lies within the Tottleworth 

Conservation Area and within the Green Belt. 

The property has already been extended through the addition of a two-storey rear extension across 

the full width of the property and projecting 3.7m from the original rear wall of the property. 


The applicant proposes a single-storey pitched roof extension across the full width, projecting 5.4m 

beyond the existing extension. The proposed extension would be rendered with a slate roof, to 

match the existing house. 


11/81/0451 Erection of front porch and two-storey extension at rear. Refused 1.10.1981. 

11/77/0179 Two-storey extension at rear. Approved conditionally 24.7.1977. 

Consultations 

Neighbouring properties notified/site notice: Letters received from the occupiers of the two 

adjoining properties raise the following points: 

• There has already been one extension to the back of No.3 which takes light off No.4, and a 

further 5.4m is going to take more light and sunlight and look even worse. 

• An extension a lot smaller would be acceptable. 

• It would reduce the value of their house. 

• The property is in a Conservation Area. 

• The extension would involve the digging of footings on No.2’s side of the boundary fence. 

• The ground level of No.2 is higher than that of No.3. 

• There has been no dialogue between the applicant and his neighbour. 



S1 Green Belts 

E8 Conservation Areas 


Applicant’s comments 

In support of his application and following the concerns raised by the Planning Officer and by 

neighbours, the applicant has made the following points: 

65

• In pre-application discussions with the Planning Officer in 2005, advice was given that 

encouraged the submission of an application. The advice given was that a single-storey 

extension would be acceptable in principle, subject to satisfactory scale and appearance, 

with the impact of a 5.2m extension on No.2 reduced by the existing extension at No.2, and 

on No.4 by the high fence along the boundary, but the outcome of any planning application 

could not be predicted. 

• The current application has been submitted because his children, aged 8 & 10, require 

privacy and space. He has been advised that the planning regulations have become stricter 

since 2005, but he feels that even if the rules have changed the principle and the impact 

remain the same. 

• He has measured the land and there does not appear to be any difference in level between 

Nos. 2 and 3. He would leave the fence between Nos. 2 and 3 in situ and move the wall 

0.3m in from the boundary to ensure the footings would not go onto No.2. 

• The 7ft. high fence between Nos. 3 and 4 would remain in situ. He would reduce the height 

of the proposed extension wall to 7ft. so that it would not be seen by the neighbour, 

reducing the angle of the roof from approximately 45º to 25º, which would also reduce the 

roof height to less than 11ft. 

• He feels that the extension is in keeping with the environment and will if anything enhance 

the area. 

Observations 

The key issues for consideration in this case are the acceptability of the proposal in terms of Green 

Belt policy, the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and the impact 

on the amenities of neighbouring residents. 

Under Policy S1 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan, which reflects Government advice given 

contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts, limited extensions or alterations to 

dwellings in the Green Belt will only be allowed provided that they do not result in 

disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The scale of extensions 

considered appropriate is now specified in the Council’s guidelines on residential extensions, which 

are already in use and will become formalised as part of the Local Development Framework. 

Under the guidelines, an increase in footprint not exceeding 50% of the original footprint of the 

building would normally be considered acceptable in the Green Belt. The submitted scheme, added 

to the existing extension, would result in an increase of 105% over and above the footprint of the 

original building. The cumulative effect of large extensions to these originally-small terraced 

properties has the potential to reduce the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore I consider the 

proposal to be unacceptable in terms of Local Plan Policy S1. 

Policy E8 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan requires that when considering proposals for 

development in Conservation Areas, the Council will have regard to the siting, form, mass, design 

and materials of the proposed structures and the extent to which they take account of existing 

building lines. The combined projection of the existing and proposed extensions from the rear of 

the property would be 9.1m, across the full width of the property. In my opinion, the proposed 

extension is excessive in scale, given that the house has already been substantially extended, and in 

my view it would detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and would 

therefore be contrary to Local Plan Policy E8. 

66

The application property forms part of a terrace of four which faces south-east to the front, all of 

which have existing extensions. No.2 has a two-storey rear extension of the same projection as the 

existing two-storey extension at No.3, and a single-storey lean-to extension beyond, projecting a 

further 2.1m, both extensions being set 1m from the boundary with No.3, along which there is a 

1.7m fence. The garden level of No.2 is set approximately 0.3m above the level of No.3’s garden. 

No.4 has a two-storey rear extension set well away from the boundary with No.3, and a singlestorey 

lean-to extension up to the boundary with No.3 and projecting 1.9m from the rear wall of 

No.4. There is a fence up to 2.5m high along the boundary with No.4, which would roughly 

correspond to the eaves height of the proposed extension. Although the existing extensions at the 

neighbouring properties and boundary fences would reduce the impact of the proposal to some 

degree, given the scale and orientation of the proposed extension, in my opinion it would have a 

significant impact on both adjoining properties due to loss of outlook, light and sunlight, to a 

degree which would result in unacceptable loss of amenity to the occupiers of neighbouring 

properties. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan Policy E10. Other points 

raised by neighbours relate to matters which are not relevant to the consideration of the planning 

application. 


Refuse for the following reasons: 


1 The proposed development is located within the Green Belt as defined in the Hyndburn Borough 

Local Plan. The proposed extension, by reason of its size in combination with existing extensions 

to the property, represents a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original 

dwelling, thereby reducing the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore the proposed development 

would be contrary to Policy S1 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

2 The proposed extension, in combination with existing extensions to the property, would result in 

an excessive enlargement of the property which would detract from the character, appearance and 

visual amenities of the Tottleworth Conservation Area. 

3 The erection of the proposed extension, because of its size and location, would constitute an 

unneighbourly form of development which would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers 

of the adjoining dwellings, in particular due to loss of outlook, sunlight and daylight and therefore 

be contrary to Policy E10 of the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan. 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

67

11/07/0749 

17 Tennyson Avenue Oswaldtwistle Accrington BB5 4QZ 

Erection of a single storey and two-storey rear extension, and two storey side extension 

(amendment to application 11/06/0508) 

Miss Lamb 


This quasi semi-detached property is situated on the south side of Tennyson Avenue, 

Oswaldtwistle. The former Council house is the end property in a row of four which is fronted to 

the north by an area of open space. To the rear are playing fields. The area is entirely residential in 

character. 


Amendment to existing planning permission (Application No. 11/06/0508). Proposal now involves 

the erection of a two-storey side extension which measures 1.1m wide by 3.1m long. The erection 

of part single storey and part two-storey rear extension which measures 3.6 metres wide by 4.3 

metres long. The extension is to be built in materials to match the existing. 


11/06/0508 Erection of single storey rear extension, two-storey side extension and rear dormer – 

approved conditionally 2.11.06 

Consultations 

Neighbours notified – 1 letter received making the following comments: 

• I would like to point out that this first floor extension, if passed, would be overlooking my 

living room widow. 

• The fact that No. 17 is very close to my property means that it would greatly affect my 

privacy, therefore I am strongly objecting to the first floor extension. 




Observations 

Conditional planning permission was granted in November 2006 (Application No. 11/06/0508) for 

the erection of a single storey rear extension, two-storey side extension and rear dormer. None of 

the works granted by that permission have been implemented. This application seeks permission to 

erect a first floor extension over the proposed rear extension in lieu of the dormer approved in the 

earlier application. 

The key issues for consideration in this case are the design, appearance and scale of the proposed 

extensions, their impact on the character and appearance of the property and the area in general, 

and the impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents. 

68

The proposed first floor extension as an alternative to the rear dormer previously approved is the 

only difference between the two schemes. This first floor extension would be in keeping with the 

character of the existing property, and would not be excessive in scale. In my view, the proposed 

extension would not have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the property, nor 

on the area in general. 

The neighbour who lives at No 17a Tennyson Avenue which is located to the south-west of the 

application property, has objected to the proposal on the grounds of loss of privacy and 

overlooking. It is my view that, due to the relationship between the application property and the 

bungalow next door at No 17a Tennyson Avenue, which is at an angle, the first floor window in the 

extension would overlook the neighbour’s kitchen window which is approximately 6 metres away. 

In view of this I consider that the proposed first floor extension is unacceptable as it would result in 

loss of privacy for the neighbour, not only in terms of overlooking of the kitchen window, but also 

the neighbour’s garden. 

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


Refuse for the following reason: 


1 The erection of the proposed first floor extension, because of its height, size, location and 

design, would constitute an unneighbourly form of development which would be detrimental to the 

amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling, in particular by the overlooking of the 

adjacent property and therefore would be contrary to Policy 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 

69

Planning Applications - Hyndburn Borough Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?