Preston-based Oakmere Homes recently faced significant backlash as they sought permission to develop residential units south of Accrington Road in Whalley. The proposed development has stirred up discontent among local councillors and community members, primarily due to the absence of affordable homes within the plan. While council planning officers had recommended approval, Ribble Valley councillors swiftly challenged this viewpoint, highlighting serious concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing as well as issues raised by Lancashire County Council and the Environment Agency related to traffic safety and flood risks.
The site in question has been a topic of interest since 2012, with multiple plans presented over the years. However, councillors argued that the area has undergone significant changes in that time, necessitating a reevaluation of the potential impact of new housing developments. Graham Love, the agent for the applicant, was present at the planning committee meeting and defended the proposal by arguing that the site had already received outline permission for housing back in 2012, and that an access road had been constructed in 2018. He asserted that the site was not capable of accommodating affordable housing, a claim met with hostility from some councillors who deemed it both “unacceptable and arrogant.”
Councillor Malcolm Peplow, representing the Green party, was particularly vocal in his opposition, stating, “There is a complete lack of affordable housing in this plan.” He underscored the council’s policy that mandates a minimum of 30% affordable housing units for developments of this scale. In this case, given the size of the development, that would translate to 23 affordable homes that should have been included in the plan. “The council will only support a reduction to a minimum of 20% where evidence is provided,” he emphasized, pointing out that it was unusual to be asked to accept a proposal with zero affordable housing, which he flagged as a breach of the council’s core strategy.
Peplow also raised alarms about what he described as the over-development of the area, highlighting the strain on local infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities, and the general concerns raised by increased road traffic. He lamented that the significant rise in vehicle and pedestrian interactions had become a safety risk, particularly given that, over the past five years, four out of six reported collisions with pedestrians in the vicinity were considered serious. This was particularly troubling, he noted, in light of the input from county highways officers, who recommended the development despite its potential impact on highway safety or road capacity.
Councillor Mark Hindle, a Conservative member of the council, further reflected on the changes Whalley has experienced since the early 2010s. “Twelve years ago, Whalley was a very different place. It probably had the infrastructure in place to cope with development then, but the world has changed considerably in more recent years,” he stated. He recounted a recent incident where a car crashed directly into a shop window, illustrating the dangerous nature of traffic in the area. Hindle expressed that with the existing state of local roads—particularly the two nearby roundabouts—safety was becoming increasingly compromised as development proposals rolled in without proper consideration of their impact on existing traffic patterns.
Fellow Conservative councillor Kevin Horkin echoed Hindle’s concerns over the affordable housing aspect of the proposal, firmly stating, “The affordable homes issue here represents a complete breach of the core strategy. If we did anything else but refuse this, it would open the floodgates for similar developments that do not include necessary affordable housing.” He emphasized that the council must remain steadfast in its commitment to affordable housing, which has been a core strategy designed to support the community.
Another dissenting voice came from Progressive Liberal councillor Mark French, who also took issue with the developer’s stance on the feasibility of including affordable homes in the proposal. He remarked, “Regarding affordable homes, it’s totally unacceptable to bin that strategy. I think it’s unacceptable and quite arrogant of the developer to say it cannot be afforded.”
The passionate debate within the council chamber intensified as these discussions unfolded, showcasing a community fully engaged in the planning process and concerned about the overall implications of the proposed flats on Whalley’s infrastructure and social fabric.
As the debate continued, community members expressed their own fears about increasing pressure on local services, particularly the impact of new developments on education and health care. With growing populations come greater demands for schools and medical facilities, and many residents feel that these needs are frequently overlooked in favor of new housing units. The absence of a plan to integrate affordable housing within Oakmere’s proposal indicated a disregard for these critical social needs.
As the discussions reached a crescendo, the councillors ultimately found themselves ‘minded to refuse’ the planning application. This decision signaled their commitment to adhering to the core principles of local planning strategies that emphasized the need for affordable housing in new developments. The planning officers will now be responsible for crafting the official wording for the refusal, which is set to be confirmed at the next committee meeting.
The case highlights the tension that often exists between developers eager to expand residential opportunities and local councils striving to prioritize the well-being and interests of their communities. As the landscape of Whalley changes reshaped by the pressures of modern living, residents and their representatives are keenly aware of the need to balance growth with sustainability.
For communities like Whalley, accommodating new homes must not come at the expense of essential infrastructure, and the commitment to affordable housing must remain a primary focus. In a time when issues of housing affordability and access to essential services are at the forefront of public discourse across the UK, the decisions made by local councils such as Ribble Valley take on heightened significance.
This episode serves as an important reminder of the complexities involved in urban planning and the critical role local authorities play in safeguarding community needs. Councillors displayed a strong resolve in defending their stance, suggesting that while development can be beneficial, it must always align with the needs and principles defined by the community.
As the planning landscape becomes increasingly competitive and developers grapple with the varying requirements of different municipalities, this refusal may send a clear message about the importance of maintaining adequate checks and balances. Future proposals will likely be scrutinized more closely, particularly regarding their integration of affordable housing—a pressing need that resonates deeply with communities throughout the country.
Ultimately, the outcome of Oakmere Homes’ proposal reflects the broader societal need to critically assess each new development against the backdrop of community welfare. As the council moves forward with its plans, the input from both councillors and citizens will shape the future of Whalley, ensuring that any progression is inclusive, sustainable, and rooted in the principles of equity and access for all.