ANGRY scenes fuelled by accusations of mutual "backscratching" between councillors and developers marred a decision on new housing land for Barnoldswick.
Residents living near several sites earmarked for possible development lashed out at councillors, who were themselves reluctant to make the tough decision. After a long and heated debate, they finally identified sites near Fernbank Mill and off Ben Lane as the most likely for future housing development.
Coun Margaret Bell, chairman of Pendle Council's West Craven Area Committee, outlined the background to the issue when the committee met on Tuesday.
She explained the requirement to identify new housing land, capable of being developed over the next five years, came from the Government via the county council. It was up to Pendle Council to identify suitable land in its area, and it had no choice but to do so.
West Craven councillors had even managed to get the decision for their area devolved to local level, carrying out an extensive survey of 7,800 West Craven electors to gauge their views. Eight hundred and six comment forms were returned and formed the basis of a 150-page report on the consultation.
Coun Bell said: "We have a choice. We as a community can choose how our town will grow, or we can stick our heads in the sand and let developers make the decision for us.
"If Barnoldswick land isn't earmarked for housing, we won't have met the demands of the structure plan. Developers will pick and choose the plum sites and get planning permission on appeal.
"They'll tell Government inspectors 'the council couldn't find land, so we've found it for them'.
"It would be a free for all."
Coun Bell thanked everyone who had filled in the survey and, in perhaps the only humorous moment, told the meeting that one reply read: "The monks of Kirkstall abandoned this site because of foul weather and hostile natives. These have not changed!"
She added that three areas previously identified as possible housing sites were now out of the picture. The biggest, a 2.3 hectare site off Moss Side, was owned by Silentnight. It said it would not sell the land for housing as it would be too close to its factory, meaning there was no realistic prospect of the site being developed.
Other investigations showed a smaller site at Clough Park had been given to the town many years ago by Silentnight but could only be used for leisure purposes. Another site off George Street was removed after Pendle Council decided it was unsuitable for housing.
Several other sites remained, but Coun Bell said she was pleased the survey results were clearly against development of land off Monkroyd and Greenberfield Lane.
Michael Scothern spoke out against possible development of land off Ben Lane, casting doubt on the council's claim that it was bordered on three sides by development and building on it would be "rounding off". He said Ben Lane was entirely unsuitable for access.
However, the report to the council stated: "The site owner's agent has submitted plans for an improved access point directly from Skipton Road which could be implemented subject to inclusion of land owned by Rolls-Royce."
Mr Scothern said that suggested there was already an element of collusion between the council, the landowner and possible developers, before the decision on housing land was made. It smacked of mutual "backsratching", he said - an allegation hotly refuted by Coun Bell and her colleagues.
Finally Coun Bell proposed a resolution identifying three areas. The first was a 1.44 hectare plot to the south of Fernbank Mill. It was one of the least unpopular sites in the survey, with only 28 per cent of respondents objecting very strongly to development there. Secondly, the proposal identified one hectare of the land to the north of Ben Lane, but subject to a new access directly off Skipton Road and consultation with the landowner over the boundary to the site.
Thirdly - and as a back-up plan - the committee proposed investigations into the possible allocation of land off Valley Road, to the rear of Ethel Street. That site could replace the land off Ben Lane if a new access proved impossible, but it would be subject to more public consultation.The resolution was passed by a majority of five to one.
The decision will now go to a meeting of Pendle's policy committee next Thursday, March 16, for confirmation.
Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article