Residents opposed to Darwen housing plans

Residents opposed to Darwen housing plans

Residents opposed to Darwen housing plans

First published in News
Last updated

RESIDENTS in Cranberry Lane have joined forces to oppose plans for 110 new houses behind their homes.
Bloor Homes has unveiled plans to build at Kirkhams Farm, on the field behind the row of terraced houses in the street.
The potential development comes after the site was identified in Blackburn with Darwen’s Local Plan as the council aims to meet Government house-building targets.
Consultations and public meetings about the proposal have taken place, but an official planning application is yet to be submitted.
And outraged locals have slammed the plans, claiming the access road cannot handle the increase in traffic and that wildlife will be badly affected.
A Facebook group called ‘Save Cranberry Lane from development’ was set up by residents of Cranberry Lane almost immediately after the initial proposal, which now has almost 300 members.
Terry Smethurst, one of the residents, said: “This lane has a history of poor and dangerous access and yet these plans seem to have been sealed with no consideration for local residents of other people, some quite elderly, who walk this lane using the public footpaths, but at the same time having to navigate from one side of the road to the other, between the multitude of parked cars.
“Wildlife in the area will also be badly affected by this building project, in particular owls, bats, birds, badgers and deer that graze and cross from Jacks Key woods and will lose their habitat.
“Elderly residents are afraid to cross the road due to increased traffic up and down the single track lane since the building of houses at the top of Cranberry Lane a few years ago.
“We are all aware that the Government has promised to deliver new homes in the area, but the health and safety aspect must be first and foremost.
“For all who wish to keep the area safe, please write to your MP and the Highways Agency and help to put a stop to this ridiculous building project.” 

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:43pm Sun 3 Aug 14

eastlancslad says...

Of course they want to build there. They will make more profit from building houses on a green field site.
Of course BwD council want them to build there. They can charge more council tax on higher priced properties. And don't forget, the council has government targets to meet. Budgets rely on covertly doing what the money men want, and to hell with the locals.....
Of course they want to build there. They will make more profit from building houses on a green field site. Of course BwD council want them to build there. They can charge more council tax on higher priced properties. And don't forget, the council has government targets to meet. Budgets rely on covertly doing what the money men want, and to hell with the locals..... eastlancslad
  • Score: 25

2:30pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Barb-Dwyer says...

It's happening all over - what makes this area so special?
It's happening all over - what makes this area so special? Barb-Dwyer
  • Score: 4

3:17pm Sun 3 Aug 14

AB2014 says...

They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live!
They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live! AB2014
  • Score: 24

5:30pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Notonpolelane says...

AB2014 wrote:
They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live!
Exactly, what we don't want in darwen is half finished developments all over
[quote][p][bold]AB2014[/bold] wrote: They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live![/p][/quote]Exactly, what we don't want in darwen is half finished developments all over Notonpolelane
  • Score: 12

10:17pm Sun 3 Aug 14

darwenTower says...

Where were these campaigners when the Cumberland Close development was being built?
Where were these campaigners when the Cumberland Close development was being built? darwenTower
  • Score: 6

10:30pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Dai Darwen says...

darwenTower wrote:
Where were these campaigners when the Cumberland Close development was being built?
Probably on the other side of the road.
[quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: Where were these campaigners when the Cumberland Close development was being built?[/p][/quote]Probably on the other side of the road. Dai Darwen
  • Score: 3

6:42am Mon 4 Aug 14

Excluded again says...

AB2014 wrote:
They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live!
Who is 'they' and whose money should be pumped into a failed private developer?
[quote][p][bold]AB2014[/bold] wrote: They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live![/p][/quote]Who is 'they' and whose money should be pumped into a failed private developer? Excluded again
  • Score: 7

9:00am Mon 4 Aug 14

AnotherPounding4Burnley says...

darwenTower wrote:
Where were these campaigners when the Cumberland Close development was being built?
Cumberland close was built on an old factory site. Not exactly the same as invading the countryside for manchesters commuters.
[quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: Where were these campaigners when the Cumberland Close development was being built?[/p][/quote]Cumberland close was built on an old factory site. Not exactly the same as invading the countryside for manchesters commuters. AnotherPounding4Burnley
  • Score: 3

9:14am Mon 4 Aug 14

AnotherPounding4Burnley says...

Excluded again wrote:
AB2014 wrote:
They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live!
Who is 'they' and whose money should be pumped into a failed private developer?
Gotta agree with AB2014 here, The council should step in and do something with this hideous monster, The Berlin wall they have put in the middle of the town center is very welcoming when entering from Sudell road, they should at least paint a mural on it. They being the council.
Getting back to cranberry, there are plenty of other areas that need developing in Darwen before encroaching on fields. The old moorland school, the flattened houses on queen street, the area next to the river on the main road, all the sub standard ones in Sudell. The list is endless.
They are hardly going to build affordable one bedroom units for Darwen residents, they will be for Manchester commuters. Darwen is a lovely town surrounded by large areas of natural beauty, why ruin it?
You only have to look at the successful one way system round the town center to see the council pay no heed to locals opinions, this effectively killed Darwen town center, maybe it was all a cunning plan behind the cathedral quarter development, Shut Darwen town center, develop Blackburn.
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AB2014[/bold] wrote: They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live![/p][/quote]Who is 'they' and whose money should be pumped into a failed private developer?[/p][/quote]Gotta agree with AB2014 here, The council should step in and do something with this hideous monster, The Berlin wall they have put in the middle of the town center is very welcoming when entering from Sudell road, they should at least paint a mural on it. They being the council. Getting back to cranberry, there are plenty of other areas that need developing in Darwen before encroaching on fields. The old moorland school, the flattened houses on queen street, the area next to the river on the main road, all the sub standard ones in Sudell. The list is endless. They are hardly going to build affordable one bedroom units for Darwen residents, they will be for Manchester commuters. Darwen is a lovely town surrounded by large areas of natural beauty, why ruin it? You only have to look at the successful one way system round the town center to see the council pay no heed to locals opinions, this effectively killed Darwen town center, maybe it was all a cunning plan behind the cathedral quarter development, Shut Darwen town center, develop Blackburn. AnotherPounding4Burnley
  • Score: 4

9:31am Mon 4 Aug 14

darwenTower says...

AnotherPounding4Burn
ley
wrote:
darwenTower wrote:
Where were these campaigners when the Cumberland Close development was being built?
Cumberland close was built on an old factory site. Not exactly the same as invading the countryside for manchesters commuters.
Not all of it.

As I understand it the plan is for more decent homes in Darwen, from which people could commute to their jobs in other towns.

This would hopefully balance out the current 2 up 2 down rental/ endless kebab shop town that we have become. Might get some better shops/eateries into the bargain.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPounding4Burn ley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]darwenTower[/bold] wrote: Where were these campaigners when the Cumberland Close development was being built?[/p][/quote]Cumberland close was built on an old factory site. Not exactly the same as invading the countryside for manchesters commuters.[/p][/quote]Not all of it. As I understand it the plan is for more decent homes in Darwen, from which people could commute to their jobs in other towns. This would hopefully balance out the current 2 up 2 down rental/ endless kebab shop town that we have become. Might get some better shops/eateries into the bargain. darwenTower
  • Score: -1

11:10am Mon 4 Aug 14

Excluded again says...

AnotherPounding4Burn
ley
wrote:
Excluded again wrote:
AB2014 wrote:
They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live!
Who is 'they' and whose money should be pumped into a failed private developer?
Gotta agree with AB2014 here, The council should step in and do something with this hideous monster, The Berlin wall they have put in the middle of the town center is very welcoming when entering from Sudell road, they should at least paint a mural on it. They being the council.
Getting back to cranberry, there are plenty of other areas that need developing in Darwen before encroaching on fields. The old moorland school, the flattened houses on queen street, the area next to the river on the main road, all the sub standard ones in Sudell. The list is endless.
They are hardly going to build affordable one bedroom units for Darwen residents, they will be for Manchester commuters. Darwen is a lovely town surrounded by large areas of natural beauty, why ruin it?
You only have to look at the successful one way system round the town center to see the council pay no heed to locals opinions, this effectively killed Darwen town center, maybe it was all a cunning plan behind the cathedral quarter development, Shut Darwen town center, develop Blackburn.
But the Belgrave site is not and never has been Council property.

Belgrave was a private company who sold the site to a private developer. The Council's only role was planning authority - and as the developers made sure the plans complied with planning regulations there was little more than tinkering they could legally do..

So when a private company sells a site to a private developer who then runs out of money, the Council should step in with taxpayers money and plug the hole in their finances.

This worked so well with the banks in 2007-08 that we should repeat the exercise with property developers. What could possible go wrong?
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPounding4Burn ley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AB2014[/bold] wrote: They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live![/p][/quote]Who is 'they' and whose money should be pumped into a failed private developer?[/p][/quote]Gotta agree with AB2014 here, The council should step in and do something with this hideous monster, The Berlin wall they have put in the middle of the town center is very welcoming when entering from Sudell road, they should at least paint a mural on it. They being the council. Getting back to cranberry, there are plenty of other areas that need developing in Darwen before encroaching on fields. The old moorland school, the flattened houses on queen street, the area next to the river on the main road, all the sub standard ones in Sudell. The list is endless. They are hardly going to build affordable one bedroom units for Darwen residents, they will be for Manchester commuters. Darwen is a lovely town surrounded by large areas of natural beauty, why ruin it? You only have to look at the successful one way system round the town center to see the council pay no heed to locals opinions, this effectively killed Darwen town center, maybe it was all a cunning plan behind the cathedral quarter development, Shut Darwen town center, develop Blackburn.[/p][/quote]But the Belgrave site is not and never has been Council property. Belgrave was a private company who sold the site to a private developer. The Council's only role was planning authority - and as the developers made sure the plans complied with planning regulations there was little more than tinkering they could legally do.. So when a private company sells a site to a private developer who then runs out of money, the Council should step in with taxpayers money and plug the hole in their finances. This worked so well with the banks in 2007-08 that we should repeat the exercise with property developers. What could possible go wrong? Excluded again
  • Score: 1

1:21pm Mon 4 Aug 14

AnotherPounding4Burnley says...

Excluded again wrote:
AnotherPounding4Burn

ley
wrote:
Excluded again wrote:
AB2014 wrote:
They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live!
Who is 'they' and whose money should be pumped into a failed private developer?
Gotta agree with AB2014 here, The council should step in and do something with this hideous monster, The Berlin wall they have put in the middle of the town center is very welcoming when entering from Sudell road, they should at least paint a mural on it. They being the council.
Getting back to cranberry, there are plenty of other areas that need developing in Darwen before encroaching on fields. The old moorland school, the flattened houses on queen street, the area next to the river on the main road, all the sub standard ones in Sudell. The list is endless.
They are hardly going to build affordable one bedroom units for Darwen residents, they will be for Manchester commuters. Darwen is a lovely town surrounded by large areas of natural beauty, why ruin it?
You only have to look at the successful one way system round the town center to see the council pay no heed to locals opinions, this effectively killed Darwen town center, maybe it was all a cunning plan behind the cathedral quarter development, Shut Darwen town center, develop Blackburn.
But the Belgrave site is not and never has been Council property.

Belgrave was a private company who sold the site to a private developer. The Council's only role was planning authority - and as the developers made sure the plans complied with planning regulations there was little more than tinkering they could legally do..

So when a private company sells a site to a private developer who then runs out of money, the Council should step in with taxpayers money and plug the hole in their finances.

This worked so well with the banks in 2007-08 that we should repeat the exercise with property developers. What could possible go wrong?
So you are happy with the berlin wall? I'm only asking for a paint job and maybe a couple of trees to hide it. not rebuilding the entire carbuncle
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPounding4Burn ley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AB2014[/bold] wrote: They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live![/p][/quote]Who is 'they' and whose money should be pumped into a failed private developer?[/p][/quote]Gotta agree with AB2014 here, The council should step in and do something with this hideous monster, The Berlin wall they have put in the middle of the town center is very welcoming when entering from Sudell road, they should at least paint a mural on it. They being the council. Getting back to cranberry, there are plenty of other areas that need developing in Darwen before encroaching on fields. The old moorland school, the flattened houses on queen street, the area next to the river on the main road, all the sub standard ones in Sudell. The list is endless. They are hardly going to build affordable one bedroom units for Darwen residents, they will be for Manchester commuters. Darwen is a lovely town surrounded by large areas of natural beauty, why ruin it? You only have to look at the successful one way system round the town center to see the council pay no heed to locals opinions, this effectively killed Darwen town center, maybe it was all a cunning plan behind the cathedral quarter development, Shut Darwen town center, develop Blackburn.[/p][/quote]But the Belgrave site is not and never has been Council property. Belgrave was a private company who sold the site to a private developer. The Council's only role was planning authority - and as the developers made sure the plans complied with planning regulations there was little more than tinkering they could legally do.. So when a private company sells a site to a private developer who then runs out of money, the Council should step in with taxpayers money and plug the hole in their finances. This worked so well with the banks in 2007-08 that we should repeat the exercise with property developers. What could possible go wrong?[/p][/quote]So you are happy with the berlin wall? I'm only asking for a paint job and maybe a couple of trees to hide it. not rebuilding the entire carbuncle AnotherPounding4Burnley
  • Score: 2

10:53pm Mon 4 Aug 14

darwenTower says...

NIMBYs.

I hope that these residents of Cranberry Lane don't have kids who are struggling to get on the housing ladder.
NIMBYs. I hope that these residents of Cranberry Lane don't have kids who are struggling to get on the housing ladder. darwenTower
  • Score: 2

1:33pm Tue 5 Aug 14

pm1960 says...

''So you are happy with the berlin wall? I'm only asking for a paint job and maybe a couple of trees to hide it. not rebuilding the entire carbuncle''.

The land and wall is PRIVATELY owned - the Council can't just go sticking trees and painting walls that don't belong to them. Just imagine the cost to the taxpayer if the Council had to tidy up EVERY privately owned derelict site or house !

Going back to the subject of Cranberry - this piece of land has been earmarked for housing for many, many years (it's been in the previous local plans ), so it's absolutely no surprise that a private firm wishes to build there. The big change is that the current Govt are now forcing all local Councils to allocate 'immediately developable' (i.e greenfield sites that will make a profit) for development in the next five years. Previously, Councils could allocate brownfield sites as a priority.

Every Council has a target allocation set by the Govt - BwD's is about 9,200 new homes over the next 15 years. However, the Govt has said that about 20% of this allocation must be on greenfield sites within a 5 year period. So the Council has to find land to allocate around 2,000 new homes by 2019. (note the word allocate not build) . Since Cranberry was already in the plan for donkeys years a private developer is now wanting to develop it.

If the Council does not allocate these pieces of land the Govt Inspector (as in the Ribble Valley and other places) will just grant automatic permission to build to developers. And fine the Council for not allocating the land for new homes.
''So you are happy with the berlin wall? I'm only asking for a paint job and maybe a couple of trees to hide it. not rebuilding the entire carbuncle''. The land and wall is PRIVATELY owned - the Council can't just go sticking trees and painting walls that don't belong to them. Just imagine the cost to the taxpayer if the Council had to tidy up EVERY privately owned derelict site or house ! Going back to the subject of Cranberry - this piece of land has been earmarked for housing for many, many years (it's been in the previous local plans ), so it's absolutely no surprise that a private firm wishes to build there. The big change is that the current Govt are now forcing all local Councils to allocate 'immediately developable' (i.e greenfield sites that will make a profit) for development in the next five years. Previously, Councils could allocate brownfield sites as a priority. Every Council has a target allocation set by the Govt - BwD's is about 9,200 new homes over the next 15 years. However, the Govt has said that about 20% of this allocation must be on greenfield sites within a 5 year period. So the Council has to find land to allocate around 2,000 new homes by 2019. (note the word allocate not build) . Since Cranberry was already in the plan for donkeys years a private developer is now wanting to develop it. If the Council does not allocate these pieces of land the Govt Inspector (as in the Ribble Valley and other places) will just grant automatic permission to build to developers. And fine the Council for not allocating the land for new homes. pm1960
  • Score: 2

8:51pm Wed 6 Aug 14

bossindian says...

NIMBYs. They live where they do because somebody granted planning permission for their homes......pot / kettle?
NIMBYs. They live where they do because somebody granted planning permission for their homes......pot / kettle? bossindian
  • Score: 2

8:41pm Wed 13 Aug 14

child44 says...

Excluded again wrote:
AB2014 wrote:
They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live!
Who is 'they' and whose money should be pumped into a failed private developer?
What's to stop developers of Cranberry failing and leaving Darwen with another half-finished eyesore? Or anywhere/anyone else the Council give planning permission to, willy-nilly.

If you want the Cranberry site, you have to buy and finish off the Belgrave site first. How's that? What's stopping the Council from insisting on something like that?
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AB2014[/bold] wrote: They should pump money into finishing the hideous disaster that was Belgrave - finish projects that are turning out town into an eyesore before recking the countryside that makes the area a desirable place to live![/p][/quote]Who is 'they' and whose money should be pumped into a failed private developer?[/p][/quote]What's to stop developers of Cranberry failing and leaving Darwen with another half-finished eyesore? Or anywhere/anyone else the Council give planning permission to, willy-nilly. If you want the Cranberry site, you have to buy and finish off the Belgrave site first. How's that? What's stopping the Council from insisting on something like that? child44
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree