Pendle Core Strategy

[PanBiker]

Extending beyond the boundary of the former mill at Barnsey, effectively the other side of the Little Cut would cause problems in my view, that bit is decidedly wet when it rains. It is after all the source of some of the town drains. Sorry if I have missed it but who decides on the 600 figure? What about existing stock that could be enhanced during refurb. Not everyone can afford new so there is a lot of mileage in our empty terraces and other housing stock. Is that not taken into account?

[plaques]

Unfortunately, most residents are bored with it during the years that it's produced. It's only when there's a planning application for houses to be built nearby that people begin to object - by which time, it's generally far too late!

I made this exact point to the scrutiny committee when they asked for items to review. The very word 'Strategy' implies some forward looking plan that could be adjusted depending on circumstances. Our current Pendle strategy is now set in concrete and only in very exceptional will any objections result in any changes and then only in a minor way. The initial 'Strategy' was a massive tome of a document, hundreds of pages, of mind bending past histories and proposals. The only people likely to read it would be paid professionals who would then bend it to their advantage. Professed to be good open democratic planning the whole procedure is skewed against the ordinary public. If the 'Plan' had been broken down into bite size chunks and offered up specific to the areas affected along with the comment, "This is what will take place if you agree", it may have been more long winded but certainly more democratic. Needless to say my suggestion to the scrutiny committee was rejected.

[Stanley]

P is dead right and reinforces my post about the Cunning Wheeze of making the report so long and boring that only dedicated and intelligent people like P have the stamina to read and understand it.
Ian is right about the former course of the Little Cut and further it should be remembered that the water coming down there must be contaminated by the leachate coming out of the old tip in Rainhall Rock. I also agree with the points he made about siting, particularly no encroachment on the Green. The only serious contamination I can think of on old mill sites is possible minor asbestos contamination on the site of the old engine and boiler houses but that could be very low level.

[David Whipp]

Apologies for not responding sooner (only back 'on the grid' due to jury rigged electric supply...).

Understand about the water in the field section of the proposed development at Barnsey; however, the whole of the land applied for has a current consent for commercial/industrial use (which was granted donkeys years ago when Westons planned to move to Barlick), so could be developed for employment use in any event.

The figure of 600 is an approximate estimate based on the requirements in the Core Strategy. The strategy sets out that future development will be in proportion with the current distribution of population across the borough. West Craven has about 19% of Pendle's population; therefore, its 'share' is around about 1,000 properties. 600 is my guesstimate of Barlick's share of that.

The intention in referring to the two obvious brownfield sites in Barlick is that they would only provide half of the requirement, event if used in full, leaving land for a further 300 houses (or so) to be found.

[PanBiker]

Does the Core Strategy take into account existing essential infrastructure? Thinking mainly of medical and other emergency service cover, water, sewage, school provision etc. An extra 600 houses would potentially mean another 2,000 to 2,500 increase in population. What happens if you don't or can't meet the targets expected?

Hope your leccy gets sorted soon David.

[plaques]

Too painful to go through item by item. A link to the current Core Strategy can be found through
Pendle Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy
Pendle Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Policies.
www.pendle.gov.uk/framework (past issue of framework)

An example of what's inside can be seen from the following....
12.52 Lancashire County Council (LCC) is responsible for planning the provision of school places.
Consideration is given to the influences on local population change, including the birth rate, inward
and outward migration and the location of new and proposed housing developments. The recent
rise in Pendle’s birth rate has seen LCC increase capacity at infant and junior schools in Nelson.
Further projected increases have indicated a need for additional places in Colne and Barrowford
before the end of the plan period. The reduction in capital funding, being made available to LCC,
means that the need to seek contributions from housing developers, where the development is
expected to impact upon school places, may increase.
12.53 An additional issue for LCC is the lack of suitable sites for the provision of additional school places.
Pendle Council will work closely with LCC to identify suitable sites through the site allocation
process. Whilst the growth in pupils is currently impacting on the primary school sector, this growth
will move into the secondary sector around 2017. Further information on the planning of school
places in Pendle can be found in Lancashire's annual 'Strategy for the Provision of School Places
and School's Capital Investment'.

Etcetera Etcetera.

[Stanley]

No wonder it's on the scale of War and Peace.....

[Whyperion]

The definition of Brownfield land includes places where houses have been / currently are built. There is scope (presuming that funding from as each Housing Association Property/ Council House is sold at Market Value (less discount) the overall funds can be applied to new build. Now much of Pendle housing estates are starting to crumble (50 odd years of Lancashire weather can be unkind ). Where these replaced smaller terraces - often of two semis to 4 or more small terraces, there is scope to reduce the green area on 'public land' and to replace a pair of semisx2 with perhaps 3 x 2 = 6 new terrace properties. Does the local plan calculate what house sizes for family size are needed. Note just because West Craven has 19% of Pendle population that it needs 19% of the total gross new build. West Craven presumably could benefit from fewer, larger family properties (of course with Council Tax maxing out at top bands Gross Council Tax receipts probably maximised with more smaller units ? )