Planning rules in Valley need to be applied fairly and equally
PLANNING is a contentious matter here in Rossendale – not least because of the contradictory messages the council’s planning department seems to put out.
Earlier this year, the council was defeated by planning inspectors in its attempts to force a farm owner in Helmshore to dig up the newly-laid road to his house on the grounds he hadn’t sought planning permission for the project.
At the time, Rossendale MP Jake Berry said the council’s determination to make a home owner dig up the smooth new access to his home and reinstate dozens of potholes was proof the council’s planning department wasn’t fit for purpose.
This column argued that planning matters shouldn’t be the subject of politicking as planning matters are essentially about interpreting national legislation at a local level.
Maybe this column was wrong.
Having read the case of Bacup man Scott McLoughlin, who now has to live with a huge retaining wall at the side of his garden which obscures views even from his upstairs window.
The retaining wall was built by Wainhomes at the edge of a 100-home development.
They didn’t have planning permission for the wall, but built it anyway.
The council even admits the wall wasn’t sanctioned when they gave planning permission, but they’ve chosen to do exactly nothing about it.
Coun Christine Lamb, Rossendale council’s cabinet member for regulatory services, told the Free Press last week: “A breach of planning control was recorded including a large retaining wall that had not been built in accordance with the developer’s submitted plans.
“The developer advised that the amended wall design was necessary to strike a balance between reducing garden levels and screening the gardens and dwellings from overlooking and being overlooked.
“Whilst a breach in planning control was recorded the council concluded that it was neither necessary nor proportionate to pursue formal enforcement action given that the retaining wall was built for the amenity of a number of properties.”
The council would perhaps argue that common sense has prevailed – to correct the wall would risk having to remove 100 homes.
But compare this case in Bacup with the driveway in Helmshore.
It seems Rossendale council’s planning department is happy to go to long lengths to chase the little guy – in this case the chap with the drive in Helmshore – but won’t take on Wainhomes when they decide to build a whopping great wall which wrecks the garden of an existing home.
What message does that send to developers looking to move into the area?
On one hand, the council complains of being ‘between a rock and a hard place’ when it comes to the council’s requirement to find space for thousands of new houses, on the other hand it might as well be shouting to developers ‘hey, come to Rossendale, we don’t enforce the planning rules all the time’.
Planning rules need to be applied fairly and equally.
And if a commonsense compromise needs to be reached, it surely can’t be done by just buying the promises of the developer to make the error they’ve made prettier.
This matter is far from over in Bacup.
The solicitors representing Mr McLoughlin says they will go to judicial review.
It could become very expensive for Rossendale council.
In the meantime, perhaps the council should consider what the point of having a regulatory services department is if they don’t intend to actually stick to the regulations they are meant to enforce.
Maybe Mr Berry had a point after all.