Key points about the 2013 application for the Boars Head Car Park and Bowling Green
Inaccuracies with the application/lack of information
1. There is no north/south cross section that would give an indication of how high the houses will
be in relation to affecting the views of residents of Church Street and Brandwood.
2. There are no technical details showing how the existing retaining walls on 4 sides of the site will
be strengthened.
3. There are no north arrows or scale bars on the plans which there have to be for planning
applications
4. In order for the new block paved access road to the new houses to be built, then a new retaining
wall will need to be built along the rear of houses on Church Street. No provision has been made
for this within the actual plans which means the developer would have to build a wall from
within the private gardens of residents of Church Street
5. Part of the land that is shown within the new plans is actually owned by a resident of Church
Street and not the developer. They have lied on the application by not stating that they don’t
own all the land. They knew there was another land owner from the comments submitted in
response to the last application.
6. The Heritage Statement states:
a. that most buildings in the vicinity date from the 19th and 20th century but this is untrue.
Most date from the late 18th Century.
b. The map it gives showing the listed buildings has missed off the houses on Bolton Street
and the listed graves within the church yard
c. It says there are garages at the rear of Church Street whose ‘setting can only be
enhanced by the proposed development’. There is one garage that will be sliced in half
by the proposed development! Haven’t even looked at their own plans
d. ‘The view from the Church access is not an inspiring one and one which the proposed
development can only improve’. A bit subjective
e. The photos of the site show it with a car park and bowling green that will be improved by
the development. However, we know that there is no bowling green or car park! Again,
they haven’t updated their reports
f. When the application says the development will hide the backs of the Boars Head and
adjoining houses it means that it will block the views and light from the backs of these
properties!
g. It will remove the unsympathetic car park – they are planning to retain part of the car
park and increase the amount of hard standing! So again, inaccurate!
h. The height of the proposed buildings will not compete with the church tower – no
mention of competing with existing properties
7. In the actual planning application, there are several statements that are incorrect.
a. Q3 states that the site was a ‘former bowling green’ and makes no mention of the car
park. Also it says that the change of use hasn’t started but it did when they stripped the
topsoil from the bowling green.
b. Q6 doesn’t take into account that by building up to the boundary wall of the properties
on Church Street, these residents would not be able to get access to their back gardens
and would fall around 3m down a retaining wall.
c. Q6 also says that the new access road would be privately owned. This is proposed to be
built in block paving, so who will maintain this once it settles and gets uneven after a few
years?
d. All the materials proposed are artificial – stone, slate and UPVC windows. Not in keeping
with the listed buildings that surround the site
e. Q10 states that 19 car parking spaces will be provided but there are none at present. As
we all know, there were around 14/15 spaces originally. And 14 of the spaces to be
provided are private for the houses or are garages!
f.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Q14 states that the bowling green id disused and makes no mention of the car park. It
also states that this use ceased in 2005. We all know that the use ceased when it was
fenced off by the developer in April 2011.
Design and access statement – first page straight off shows a photo of something that doesn’t
exist – the green!
a. 1.1 the site is occupied by a bowling green and car park- not any more!
b. 1.3 the private car park will be for use by the Church. What about the pub, hairdressers,
residents, village events?
c. 2.1 the houses are 3 storey – blocking out light to the houses above and below
d. 2.2 artificial materials will apparently ‘reference the materials and heritage of the
historic buildings of Newchurch’! ‘We have chosen both reconstituted stone and artificial
slate as the neighbouring buildings appear to also be made of these materials’. Did I read
that right?!?!?! Do they have eyes?!?!
e. All the reference photos are out of date and irrelevant
f. 3.4 the houses will have 1.8m high boundary fences (which are about 1.5m away from
Brandwood!) and will totally block out light to the windows
g. 5.2 apparently the care home was consulted but none of the other residents! There has
been absolutely no consultation at all
h. PPG 17 does apply even the bowling green was private. See earlier comments from Sport
England who objected to the application
Drawing ref E259-105 Proposed Site Plan
a. The proposed gated access to the rear of the Boars Head is around 3.5m wide. Which
means that dray wagons and bin wagons can’t access this area
b. The proposed new access road cuts the existing garage in half
c. The bin storage area is 300mm away from the base of a protected tree. Unless this will
be built on top of the ground with no footings whatsoever, this will cause damage to the
tree roots. As it is, the compaction and hard surfacing of the bin store will prevent
moisture and nutrients from reaching the tree roots and will cause it irreparable harm
d. What is the surfacing material proposed for the base of the other tree? Tarmac right up
to the trunk? This would in all likelihood cause the tree to die due to compaction of the
existing ground and lack of moisture and nutrients to the tree roots
e. As I mentioned before, there are no north/south cross sections or construction details
showing the proposed strengthening to the retaining walls. To the east, south and west,
these have to be improved or else risk the new houses collapsing. And to the north, they
are proposing to get rid of the existing wall which is around 3m high with no mention of
building another! That would mean all the houses on Church Street would start to slip!
Let alone opening a garden gate onto a 3/4m drop onto a block paved road
Tree Survey
a. 8.1a – suggests that the work should physical damage to tree roots during construction
(such as soil compacting or severing). Both of these are proposed by the contractor and
would harm the tree
b. 8.1b – preserve the soil structure at suitable density for root growth
The Land Contamination survey is out of date and makes reference to the old plans so must be
quite irrelevant.
The following points are from the earlier application and are still applicable in this instance.
 Privacy –The new houses will have windows looking onto houses on Bolton St, Brandwood and
Church St which would give a lack of privacy for existing residents and new residents.
 Daylight/sunlight – the proposed housing would block out light to Brandwood almost completely
as well as affecting the light to Church Street




Access and Traffic - Church Lane is really narrow and the additional traffic would be a nightmare.
And in winter when it snows, there will be at least 12 more cars on Newchurch Road. If the
houses have 4 bedrooms, there might even be 3 cars per house…….
The proposed houses would be artificial stone and slate which I think would look really cheap
and not in keeping with the surroundings.
Existing retaining structures - There is no mention of strengthening the existing retaining walls
either along the boundary with Brandwood or around the bowling green. I know these are in
need of repair as it is and will not take the additional weight of the houses and road.
The Core Strategy – this document was adopted by Rossendale Borough Council on 8th
November 2011 states in Policy 7: Social Infrastructure (page 78) the following:
a. “It is proposed that social infrastructure improvements and new provision
will be encouraged at suitable locations within the Borough:
b. The loss of social infrastructure / cultural facilities such as pubs, post offices,
theatres, community halls, youth centres, parks and open space that require
a change of use application will be resisted, particularly in local centres and
small settlements.