Lancashire TelegraphCampaigners win battle over Colne 203-homes plan (From Lancashire Telegraph)

When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.

Campaigners win battle over Colne 203-homes plan

Lancashire Telegraph: Azhar Ali Azhar Ali

CAMPAIGNERS have hailed the unanimous decision by councillors to reject plans to build more than 200 homes on a gateway site in Colne.

Pressure group Get Knotted put forward arguments to Pendle Council’s development management committee on Wednesday against proposals by Persimmon Homes for 203 new properties on a green corridor off Knotts Lane.

Speakers opposed to the plans detailed multiple objections regarding traffic, drainage and wildlife concerns at the meeting at Nelson Town Hall attended by around 20 objectors.

Persimmon are the owners of the greenfield site in question.

Their plans were for 120 four-bedroom houses, along-side 67 three-bed and 16 two-bed properties.

The land is bounded by the railway line to the north and existing housing on the east.

The campaigners are now anticipating a possible appeal by Persimmon to the Secretary of State responsible for communities.

Spokesman for Get Knotted Azhar Ali said the decision was a ‘victory for common sense and local democracy’.

He added: “There was a reasoned, sensible debate in which all parties were respectful.

“Many councillors told me how impressed they were by our organisation and knowledge.

“It was a fine example of community groups coming together.

“Pendle already has 1,770 empty homes so we fail to see the need for these new houses.

“There may be an appeal but we are ready for that and will fight these proposals all the way.”

Another Get Knotted supporter, Eleanor Butler, said: “I know it has been hard work for all concerned and the successful vote was well earned.

“No other lobby group could have put together a better case.

“Let’s hope that the next stage will also be as successful.”

A spokesman for Pendle Council said the reasons for refusing the development were poor design, that development would remove the land of biological value and failure to demonstrate the site would not be at risk of flooding.

Comments

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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