Disabled people would struggle with the steep climb to proposed 80-homes estate
Controversial hill-side housing estate ‘would have steeper paths than Clitheroe Castle or Pendle Hill’
A housing estate proposed for a Lancashire hill-side would have some steeper paths than Pendle Hill or Clitheroe Castle’s base, councillors have claimed.
People with prams, walking sticks, wheelchairs or cycles would struggle to get up or down the 80-homes estate proposed for Wilpshire, Ribble Valley councillors say.
They also believe the land, east of Salesbury View, should never have been earmarked as suitable for homes.
Councillors want to refuse the plan – against officers’ advice – but are wary of a potential appeal by developers.
And some councillors fear potential legal action by disabled people or potential affordable homes being inaccessible.
Persimmon Homes is behind the plan.It has previously been refused permission twice on the site and lost an appeal with its last application.
It says the new plan is well-designed and will provide much-need homes.
But 150 objections have been sent to Ribble Valley Council, which discussed the issues at its July meeting – following earlier talks in May.
And Wilpshire residents with their parish council recently paid for an independent 585-page report about the site, claiming it is unsuitable.
Jonathan Finch, speaking for objectors, told the latest planning committee meeting: “The most-public route up Pendle Hill has a 1/10 gradient – but a huge number of slopes at this Wilpshire site would be steeper. A 1/9 gradient would not encourage cyclists and access would be difficult for some 999 vehicles.
“Furthermore, the developer’s own report says construction equipment would need to be off-loaded onto the A666 road below because of access issues.“
“The community is united in its view, and residents have put time and money into this independent report. Please refuse this application.”
However, Rachael Graham, representing Persimmon, said: “Since May, further scrutiny has been given to drainage and highways questions. And we are pleased that the council [officers] have reached the same view as our experts. We do not feel the parish response addresses any material planning issues.
“There’s no doubt the site will need some work with terraces – but so do many sites. Persimmon has never suggested making wholesale change to the site – it has only suggested targeted changes. Landscaping would be done too and the plan complies with the council’s local plan and national policy, which places a greater emphasis on housing.”
But Coun Stuart Hurst, who is not on the planning committee, urged councillors to refuse it. He said: “This new independent report reflects the intensity of public concerns and supports two reasons to refuse. One is the landscape impact and the other is totally unsuitable access roads.
“Regarding steep slopes, the site has been compared to Pendle Hill or access to a Tibetan monastery. And inaccessibility could lead to a challenge under disability laws. And there is a safety issue too. The route is fundamentally unsuitable.”
Coun Kevin Horkins said: “All credit to the residents and parish council for going to extraordinary lengths to get such a detailed report. For the reasons stated, I cannot support this plan.”
Coun Michael Graveston said: “This seems to be a recipe for disaster. The land levels are extremely steep. I can’t support a development if things are not accessible.”
But Coun Jonathan Hill said; “This seems to be a problem that the council has created. We identified this site as suitable for development when clearly it’s not. I had nothing to do with the local plan but somehow it seems to be supporting a poor application like this.”
Committee chairman Coun Lee Street said he understood councillors’ points but some some late updates had only arrived very recently. So he asked if councillors should defer a decision until the next meeting, to allow all sides more time.
However, other councillors disagreed and called for refusal, saying the updates did not change fundamental concerns.
When council planning director Nicola Hopkins asked councillors for specific refusal reasons, Coun Horkins said: “We are lay-people. We don’t have the qualifications that officers have. We had officers in the past who would listen to debate and put into words what councillors said. We seem to have departed from that.”
Coun Mark Hindle said: “This committee has fundamental concerns about that site. The issue will not go away by trying to reconcile one sentence here and one sentence there in different reports. That is not the committee’s purpose.”
Mair Hill, a council solicitor, said the council’s code of conduct required councillors to clearly state their planning reasons.
Nicola Hopkins suggested access, visual impact and the Equalities Act.Councillors agreed and she will draft specific wording for the next meeting.
Asked about the likelihood of an appeal, she said: “If this is refused, it will go to an appeal. There ‘s no doubt.”
Earlier, planning officers said they did not believe refusal based on highways or drainage concerns could be justified.