Ribble Valley councillors have turned down a proposal for 57 apartments, 17 homes, and a public car park in Whalley due to the absence of any affordable housing options. Oakmere Homes, based in Preston, had sought consent for the development located south of Accrington Road, Whalley — a plan which received the backing from planning officers.
However, during Ribble Valley Council's latest planning meeting, councillors criticised the lack of affordable housing in the proposal by Oakmere, as well as the stances of Lancashire County Council and the Environment Agency regarding traffic impact and flood risk.
The site in Whalley has been at the centre of various development proposals since 2012. Councillors noted that significant changes in the area have occurred over this time, reports .
Representing the developer, agent Graham Love commented: "This application has been around for some time and I'm pleased it's before councillors now with an approval recommendation.
"My first point is about history. The site has planning permission, which was granted as outline permission in 2012, and access was constructed in 2018. Permission cannot lapse because work has been implemented."
"The second point is about viability and affordable housing. This cannot support affordable homes. A public car park was requested but that could instead have four homes, two of which could be affordable. Two market value homes could subsidise two affordable homes."
Green Party Councillor Malcolm Peplow, voicing his multiple concerns, explained that the project would notably affect the west side of his ward.
Discussing the housing issue, he said: "There is a complete lack of affordable housing in this plan. For a development this size, our council requires a minimum of 30 per cent affordable units. Here, that would equate to 23 units. The council will only support reduction to a minimum of 20 per cent where evidence is provided. Remarkably, here we are being asked to accept no affordable housing, a breach of our core strategy.
"We should also remind ourselves of the adverse impact that over-development has had, over ten years or so, on some areas that are quite some distance from where developments have occured. Thousands of new dwellings have been built. This has vastly increased road traffic and over-demand for schools, doctors, dentists and other essential infrastructure.
"My ward is deeply affected by hugely increased traffic on the A671 through Read and Simonstone, Accrington Road through Portfield Bar and on Sabden Road in Simonstone. The impact has been devastating, effecting road safety and air quality."
Finally, he expressed his ongoing concerns about pedestrian safety: "There is only one pedestrian crossing for Read and Simonstone, and Simonstone is severed by a busy road that residents including school children fear to cross. It has no pedestrian crossing or school lollipop patrol. My long campaign for any type of pedestrian crossing has been ignored so far by the county council. But I am not going to give up. I ask all councillors to think not only of road safety in Whalley but also east Whalley, Read and Simonstone."
Coun Peplow expressed his confusion as to why county council highways officers did not believe the Whalley development would significantly impact highway safety or capacity. He highlighted their own statement which revealed that four out of six pedestrian collisions in the past five years were serious.
He also disagreed with the county's stance that it would be unreasonable to expect the developer to provide road junction studies due to the time elapsed since 2012. Regarding flood risks, he said: "Once again, the de-funded and de-staffed Environment Agency has given the green light to another residential development in flood risk area, being satisfied that the proposed sustainable drainage system will be enough. We must stop building near rivers. This development is the wrong houses in the wrong place at the wrong price for local people."
Conservative Coun Mark Hindle added: "I am almost in complete agreement with Coun Peplow. The implications for this would almost be completely in my ward. Twelve years ago, Whalley was a very different place. It probably had the infrastructure to cope. But the world has changed. Recently, there was an accident with a car going straight into a shop window. Whalley can be dangerous with traffic and the two roundabouts are not safe.
"I think it's woeful, yet again, that Lancashire County Council gives this feedback. They are abdicating their responsibilities. There have been 23 near-misses in the past year. And on flood risks, we were recently centimetres away from yet another flood."
Coun Hindle and Ged Mirfin, a county councillor, have repeatedly criticised the Environment Agency for its alleged failure to provide Whalley with flood defences following the floods of 2015 and 2020.
Conservative Kevin Horkin said: "The affordable homes issue here represents a complete breach of the core strategy. If we did anything else but refuse this, it would open the floodgates. We need to refuse this."
Simon Hore added: "It's difficult for us to give a refusal reason when the county council and Environment Agency don't agree with us. However, affordable homes may be a reason? In my ward, we got some affordable homes and a commuted sum. It's difficult to see why this application is do different? " Progressive Liberal Mark French commented: "Regarding affordable homes, it's totally unacceptable to bin that strategy. I think it's unacceptable and quite arrogant of the developer to say it cannot be afforded."
Independent Ian Brown concluded: "In planning, bodies such as the county council or others often have no objections so we feel we cannot refuse on that basis. But if we genuinely think there are traffic and flood risk issues, we should say so and fight it on that basis."
Coun Tony Austin said: "I'm very disappointed that the problems in the village are not being addressed by this. But there is no effort made by the Environment Agency. Same with the other side of the river. They don't want to fund schemes they should be funding. It's the same at Billington.
"But the affordable homes argument alone is a reason to refuse this. We should be looking at 10 or 12 affordable homes on a site like that. Not just two. If we don't, we will be supplementing the developer and not helping Whalley. ".
In their vote, councillors said they were 'minded to refuse' the plan. The refusal will be formally confirmed by planning officers at the next committee meeting.
Don't miss the latest news and analysis with our regular North West newsletters – sign up here for free
