Planning Applications - Hyndburn Borough Council

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