Extension of Lomeshaye Ind. Estate 

 

From: HaltonJohn <john.halton@pendle.gov.uk>
Sent: 21 May 2019 15:38
To: # LDF
Subject: Framework Newsletter
 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a copy of the latest edition of Framework, the newsletter that keeps you up to date with progress on the emerging Pendle Local Plan (Part 2) and other planning policy matters in the borough.

In Issue 43 we announce the result of the referendum for the Trawden Forest Neighbourhood Plan. We also look at how the new Housing Delivery Test will and highlight the publication of a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in February.

This edition and past issues can also be viewed on the Council website using the link below:

· www.pendle.gov.uk/framework

I hope you find Framework interesting, but please let us know if you would prefer not to receive future editions.

Kind regards.

John

JMH3 (trimmed)

Pendle Borough Council

Planning, Economic Development & Regulatory Services

Town Hall, Market Street, Nelson, BB9 7LG

T: 01282 661330 E: john.halton@pendle.gov.uk

 

 http://www.fence-in-pendle.co.uk/Framework Issue 43.pdf 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The parish council objections to the proposal are:

 

The land is Green Belt which can only be changed if there are exceptional
circumstances. It is far from clear that there are such circumstances in this case.

 

The calculations on which the requirement for so much extra employment land are flawed and involve subjective judgements which can easily be challenged.

 

The plans apparently involve the creation of a roundabout onto the bypass which would add substantial traffic to an already busy and dangerous road. The situation will be even worse if the addition of a very large housing estate is allowed off the bypass just before the college - as is also planned.

 

The calculations on which the amount of land currently available for employment purposes (mostly brown land) have been made, have involved eliminating a substantial number of sites, usually in a very subjective manner. Adding these to the total would transform the position.

 

The borough is currently considering "rebranding itself" and pushing its attraction as a tourist venue. The current industrial estate is low lying and not very obtrusive. But to extend it up a steep slope would present a terrible vista and totally eliminate the magnificent views of Pendle Hill from the motorway as well as from Nelson and
Brierfield.

 

The aim of increasing the business rates received by the borough may not happen because there is now a severe threat that the Government, and not Pendle, will receive all or part of the additional income as recompense for giving a grant to put in the initial infrastructure.

 

In the survey of businesses done by the borough in 2012, only 29% bothered to
answer and of those, 70% said they were happy with their premises. That means
that only a very small number were not satisfied because one can safely assume that those who didn't answer were happy.


The Government encourages boroughs to work with neighbouring boroughs to
produce plans. Burnley have very substantial new estates and Pendle and Burnley
should work together.

 

The current estate houses a large amount of warehousing which uses vast tracts of land but employs very few people. If the aim is to increase the number of jobs, this is a bad way to go about it. Presumably, the same will happen again if any extension is allowed.