COMMUNITY RESPONSE

Core Themes in All Objections

1. Policy Conflict
   • Site lies outside the Whalley settlement boundary and is unallocated.
   • Conflicts with Core Strategy DS1, DMG2, DMH3 and EN2 (landscape protection).
   • Residents repeatedly cite the 2020 appeal refusal (APP/T2350/W/20/3248156) on the adjacent site as binding precedent.
2. Infrastructure Strain
   • Schools: Whalley C of E oversubscribed (131 apps:45 places), St Augustine’s capped at 240. Parents already travelling outside the village.
   • Healthcare: Sabden & Whalley Medical Group stretched; CQC reports show multiple expansions but still at capacity; Clitheroe Medical Centre now taking overflow.
   • Dentists: No new NHS patients accepted locally.
   • Parking/traffic: Village centre gridlocked at peaks; parking impossible.
3. Highways & Safety
   • Clitheroe Road/A59 underpass flagged as an accident hotspot and prone to flooding.
   • Proposed new junction on a blind bend is dangerous (DMG3).
   • Residents highlight reliance on Wiswell Lane “rat-run”, already deteriorating.
4. Flooding & Drainage
   • FRA only looked inside red line; ignored regular flooding at A59 underpass.
   • Residents with lived experience say road closures last days after heavy rain.
   • Concern that hardstanding will worsen run-off.
5. Ecology & Greenfield Loss
   • Deer, bats, owls, kites, hares, rabbits, pollinators observed.
   • Objections stress surveys are incomplete and downplay ecological importance.
   • Key point: site is the last green gap separating Whalley and Barrow.
6. Heritage & Character
   • Bramley Mead, The Lodge, and other historic villas on Clitheroe Road directly affected.
   • No Heritage Impact Assessment submitted despite adjacency to Whalley Conservation Area.
   • High-density rented housing seen as out of keeping.
7. Amenity & Residential Impact
   • Loss of privacy/overlooking for existing homes.
   • Noise disturbance from lengthy construction (residents reference Lawsonsteads).
   • Risk from large protected trees not properly acknowledged (error in arboricultural report).
8. Housing Supply & Need
   • Ribble Valley has 6.2 years housing land supply, above the 5-year requirement.
   • NPPF tilted balance does not apply.
   • Residents argue this is speculative, not “local need”.

---

• The combination of:
  • Policy conflict (DS1, DMG2, DMH3, EN2, DMG3, DME4, DME6)
  • Infrastructure shortfalls with clear evidence (schools, GPs)
  • Heritage setting ignored
  • Precedent of 2020 refusal on adjacent land
    strongly tips the balance towards refusal.
• Only counterweight is the affordable housing offer, but RVBC already has >5-year supply, so no presumption in favour applies.

---

Oversights in Reports / Execution

Heritage omission: No Heritage Impact Assessment despite statutory expectation (DME4, NPPF 203–206).

Geo-environmental studies: ignored heritage receptors within 20m; downplayed ground-gas risk; no invasive vegetation assessment.

Flood Risk Assessment: failed to assess known local flooding points at the A59 underpass.

Arboricultural survey: incorrectly claimed no TPO trees on boundaries (residents proved otherwise).

Statement of Community Involvement: claimed 2,000 leaflets delivered, but many residents report never receiving them.