Nine home Salterforth plan is refused

Pendle Council's West Craven Committee decided to refuse the outline application for nine homes on land adjacent to Roughs Barn in Salterforth Lane, but with access off Park View Terrace, Salterforth. Pic courtesy of Google Street View.

Pendle Council's West Craven Committee decided to refuse the outline application for nine homes on land adjacent to Roughs Barn in Salterforth Lane, but with access off Park View Terrace, Salterforth. Pic courtesy of Google Street View.

0
Have your say

An outline plan for nine homes in Salterforth which attracted 17 objections has been refused unanimously.

Pendle Council’s West Craven Committee decided to refuse the application on land adjacent to Roughs Barn in Salterforth Lane, but with access off Park View Terrace, on grounds that it would have a serious impact on highway safety with a lack of sight lines and pavement.

Objector Mike Hibbert, owner of Traffic, Transport and Highway Consultancy, was concerned about the lack of a footpath and nothing in the plans to address this.

Mr Hibbert disputed the applicant’s road survey which had lines of sight from the entrance at 38 metres to the left and 43 metres to the right.

He said it was 11 metres to the left and seven metres to the right, adding: “I cannot see how those lines of sight can be achieved.”

Objector Patricia Hart said Salterforth Lane was a “rat run” and that there were drainage issues in the village.

She said: “Nine more houses will put a lot more stress on the system which is already failing. With 50 houses on a brownfield site (passed on the former Silentnight site across the road) I don’t see the point of nine houses on a greenfield site.”

Applicant Robert Whiteoak said the proposed development should be considered “infill” as it is “surrounded by other properties” and that it was “close to a bus route” and “very convenient to school and shops”.

Mr Whiteoak said that there is “a very good footpath along Park View Terrace” and the four yard section without it was “minimal”. He added: “There are lots of sites in Salterforth with no footpath at all.”

Mr Whiteoak also defended his highway survey which stated the development would have “negligible impact on highway safety” off an “uncategorised local access road” which was not carrying city traffic levels.

However, councillors were unimpressed. Earby ward’s Coun. Rosemary Carroll and Coun. Morris Horsfield expressed concern on water drainage.

Coun. Carroll said the highway issues were “very bad” and residential amenity of the property opposite the site entrance would be affected by car headlights “day and night”.

Committee co-optee Coun. Christine Pollard, of Salterforth Parish Council, said with the holiday park extension included, 204 dwellings were still to be built in the village which was “more than double the houses already there”.

She said: “I just feel as a village we are not being listened to. I think we are being hammered.”

Coun. Ken Hartley said: “It’s just about as far away from the school in Salterforth as you can get and the nearest shop is the Kelbrook Road garage which must be one and half miles away.”

Committee Chairman Coun. David Whipp concluded that he felt it was “unacceptable in this day and age” to pass an application without footpath provision in the application.

He added: “A child or family has to step out into the road and they are put at risk.”