Controversial housing development for historic Burnley village turned down by councillors but could still go ahead

An overhead view of what the housing development, earmarked for land in Cliviger's Red Lees Road, would look like.

The plans for the 129 development on land at Red Lees Road in Cliviger were due to be given the green light, with a raft of conditions attached, at a meeting of Burnley Council's planning committee on Wednesday.

But after a long and heated debate members of the committee rejected the plans.

But as the site was identified for a large housing development in the Burnley Borough Council's Local Plan in 2017 the application will now have to go before a meeting of the full council next month.

Burnley Conservative group leader Andrew Newhouse attended the meeting on Wednesday and spoke against the application.

After the meeting he said: "It is good to see that councillors are now objecting to something that we have fought long and hard against.

"Because the site is set out in the Local Plan it will now have to go before the full council for discussion and for a decision to be made."

The development has been earmarked for the site described as a 'prominent greenfield site in the open countryside.'

The proposed scheme will see a total of 94 detached properties and 26 semi-detached. The homes will be a mix of three and four bedroomed properties and vehicle access will be from Red Lees Road with two access points for pedestrians.

Plans show the development comprises a modern residential estate layout with a one road through it and a series of cul-de-sacs. The layout is designed to have a frontage of houses facing Red Lees Road, set back by an access road/driveways and a green buffer of approximately 5m depth up to the drystone boundary wall which will be remain in place.

A raft of objections to the scheme have been made by residents and neighbours living next to the site, Cliviger Parish Council and Burnley Civic Trust.

Objections include the claim that 129 houses on the site is excessive, the layout is unimaginative, cramped and of no architectural merit.

Campaigners also claim the development will remove three visitor footpaths and have a detrimental effect on the infracstructure of the village itself and take away a valued greenfield space.

Despite the objections the plans were recommended for approval with a raft of conditions attached including the developer contributing towards the almost £1M cost of providing 54 extra primary and secondary school places that will be needed for families moving to the new estate.