Victory for Barnoldswick residents in housing beauty spot fight

Councillors and residents protesting last year about the proposed development
Councillors and residents protesting last year about the proposed development
Share this article

Victory has been declared by residents and local politicians after news that Barnoldswick’s Greenberfield Locks beauty spot has been saved from housing development, following years of campaigning.


The news has been welcomed by residents and local councillors who have been campaigning for some time against the proposal which would have seen 63 homes built on land near the locks.

Future Habitats Ltd had appealed against the decision of Pendle Borough Council last year not to award planning permission for the development.

However, a government planning inspector has agreed that impacts on heritage and landscape would be unacceptable in the canalside location.

“We’ve been campaigning against development of this field for five years,” said Coun. Ken Hartley. “It should never have been allocated for housing in the first place and this appeal decision vindicates our opposition. The planning inspector has agreed with every word of what we said on heritage and landscape grounds.

“This is a victory that should guarantee the future of our irreplaceable canalside heritage for generations to come. This is brilliant news that will be welcomed by all who have campaigned against the destruction of our heritage and countryside.”

In his report, planning inspector Darren Hendley said: “I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the setting of these non-designated heritage assets. Accordingly, the proposal would not comply with Policy ENV1 of the CS in this regard as they constitute assets associated with the canal that are protected under this policy, as well as the general protection the policy affords to non-designated assets and their settings.

“The proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the landscape character and appearance of the area. I have considered all matters that have been raised, but the benefits that would arise would not outweigh the harm caused by the proposal.

"For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations to outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.”