To whom it may concern,
Re: Planning application 11/12/0225. Woodscape Ltd, Church Street, Church, Accrington
I am writing to express my firm objection to the change of use application above from warehouse to
general industry (being, as I understand, for the processing of animal hide).
Having lived at my present address (1, Library Street, Church, BB5 4JY) for nearly thirteen years I
trust that you will accept my objection as that of a concerned Church resident. I understand that in
the past this area has had small areas of industry but it is now a predominantly residential area
which will hopefully continue to improve as such.
Indeed, it should be noted that, only recently, an application has been placed to develop the land
across from my street ( ) into several residential properties which will bring in new families to the
area (with a few cars to boot, no doubt). I also wonder what the potential new owners/tenants of
these properties would feel about having a new industrial unit being opened so close to their new
homes?
As such, I firmly believe that this area of Church should be allowed to continue to improve in
becoming a pleasant residential area to live.
My objections fall into three categories being:1) Vermin: I live at the end of Library Street (in residential terms) but have Hyndburn Borough
Council Works directly to the left of my property. As you will be aware, not only does this
include a vehicle maintenance unit but also A RECYCLING PLANT/UNIT. Due to this,
especially at night, I have witnessedl rats (vermin) at the side of my property several times.
Due to the nature of the planned industrial animal hide processing unit I dread to think what
type of vermin this operation would attract. No doubt having the Leeds-Liverpool Canal at
the back of the property will not help! (query-is this definitely more than 20 metres away
from the proposed site as indicated in the original application?)
I do note that the applicant has already said that he would have a “rodent control contract”
in their HACCP plan (hidden away in section 2) paragraph 3) but does this residential area of
Church really need an industrial facility which would attract further vermin into the area in
the first place?
2) Increase in traffic: Since Woodscape Ltd ceased its operations there has been a noticeable
decrease in “industrial traffic” along the Edward Street/Church Street route which has
improved the safety and quality of life to residents such as me in the area.
As I indicated earlier, I live next door to the H.B.C. depot and in my view this supplies quite
enough “heavy traffic” to the otherwise peaceful residential area. I am sure that after the
proposed houses are built across the road from me there will be quite enough traffic
travelling along the route without hindering the area with more “industrial traffic”.
The applicant insists that they will only be operating 3 lorries but should the lorries
belonging to the private contractor responsible for the “waste storage and collection”
(section 7 of the initial application) not be included when assessing the viability of such an
industrial plant being located in an “up and coming” residential area?
It should also be noted at this point that a reduced speed limit of 20 mph has just been set
for the Edward Street/Church Street route. This was presumably set by H.B.C. members for
the protection of the residents (i.e. H.B.C. accepts that this area of Church is indeed, all said,
a predominantly residential area!).
3) Potential Odours: Having lived here for many years I have noticed, from time-to-time,
unpleasant odours whilst outside my house which were being produced by the industrial
facility on Bridge Street, Church and I certainly would not wish for a new industrial site to be
set-up on my doorstep with the potential of any odour emissions.
I note that the applicant has carried out an “Odour Assessment” for their premises in Great
Harwood (prepared by DG-A Ltd, dated May 2012).
The report also mentions that during “the early morning preceding the site visit the premises
were subject to vandalism, which resulted in a ruptured diesel fuel tank and the spillage of
fuel”. Not surprising then that background odours were noted on the site comprised strong
diesel fuel odours in and around the vandalised diesel fuel tank. It does however state that
“background ‘farm yard’ type odours were noted from the delivered animal hides and
skins”.
Also stated is the fact that “there was a slight to moderate breeze noted during the
sampling period on 20 January, 2009”, withambient temperatures ranging from 12-14ºC.
At this point the report also states that “it should be noted that concentrations of potential
pollutants at the site may vary depending uponmeteorological conditions and the time of
year”.
Surely, unless I have misunderstood something, the aforementioned “Odour Assessment”
should be deemed to be irrelevant with regards to the current proposal because:a) The sampling period was over 3 years ago;
b) When the assessment was carried out, the air was polluted with odours due to the
unfortunate vandalism of the diesel tank and, as such, the results cannot be reliable as a
typical days emissions;
c) The samples were taken in one of the coldest months of the year, namely January,
where the ambient temperature was only 13C. I’d like to point out that the ambient
temperature today reached 18-19C and I have no doubt that the concentrations of air
pollutions, had the samples been taken today, would be completely different and no
doubt higher.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am all in favour of any new business “setting-up” in
Hyndburn but I feel strongly that this industrial plant should not be located in this
residential area of Church where things are finally beginning to improve.
I would be grateful if you would consider my objection (as above) before any final
decisions are made.
Yours faithfully,
Mark BurtonwoodBsc