A developer has failed for a second time to be granted permission to build houses on land in Chorley which is not currently earmarked for the purpose.
Hollins Strategic Land applied to create 25 new homes on a plot off Carrington Road in Adlington. The application was an amended version of a previous bid which was rejected last year.
The applicant claimed that Chorley Council had not allocated sufficient land to meet government requirements for local authorities to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
But the authority contested claims that its calculations were out of date and, in documents presented to a meeting of the development control committee, said its approach had been approved in a recent judgement by a planning inspector in a separate appeal case.
Members heard that the authority had been able to show that it had identified more than six years’ worth of land to meet the housing target for the borough.
READ MORE >>> Chorley feeling the pressure of housing target
John Cunningham, a local resident objecting to the proposal, said there was no discernible difference between the current application and the one which was dismissed last year.
“The tweaking and bits of detail are of no consequence whatsoever,” he told the meeting. “It is outrageous that this company is making such a land grab.”
The committee also heard concerns about the impact of the proposed development on a traffic bottleneck close to a local school.
“Frankly, I don’t want to be responsible for someone’s death,” deputy committee chair, Christopher France, said.
The land in question is classed as “safeguarded”. That means it has been identified as an area which may be needed for future development, but is not part of the council’s current housing plans.
The applicant had also proposed to provide an area of green space as part of the development - but it was due to be located within a part of the plot which already forms the green belt. Members were told that the proposal was inappropriate and would “mainly serve the needs of the development itself - therefore, it is not considered a significant benefit”.
The committee unanimously rejected the application.