Rolls Royce drain plans at Barnoldswick site at risk

However, Pendle Council planning officers say some parts are acceptable but one element is not, regarding Rolls Royce’s Bankfield Shed site in Barnoldswick.

One part regarding potential flood water release near a public footpath should be refused because it covers a location beyond the official application site, officers say.

Rolls Royce is seeking approval for four conditions linked to underground drains and earthworks north of its Bankfield fan blade facility, associated with extending the fan building’s north and south sides and a host of groundworks.

The site borders a waterway, Stocks Beck, and a public footpath. Pendle Council’s West Craven committee will look at the details this week.

Separately in recent weeks, some Pendle councillors have called for action to create new manufacturing businesses on emerging land around local Rolls Royce sites for future employment and economic needs.

The factory makes fan blades for engines

Rolls Royce has a history of aircraft engine work in the town. Councillors want talks about new employment land and skilled jobs for the future, including greener manufacturing and perhaps cleaner aircraft engines.

Regarding the current Bankfield Shed site application, Rolls Royce is seeking approval for conditions relating to plans and methods for land excavation, soil contamination tests, retaining structures, a large underground water tank, transport, storage plans and vehicle parking.

A report for Pendle’s West Craven area committee states reasons for this include safeguarding an adjacent canal bank, ensuring appropriate construction methods, avoiding flooding, protecting the amenity of residents and traffic safety.

Also a method statement was required to identify any land contamination on the site and any risks to the environment, wildlife or locations beyond. If needed, remediation work would be required.

However, soil investigation reports for Rolls Royce say there is no contamination. One states: “The ground investigation for the south and north extension have now been completed.

"The investigation confirmed that the excavation to form a level area for the southern extension will be in natural boulder clay with no evidence of contamination.

“The level area for the north extension will require excavation of ‘Luke’s Mound’. The investigation confirmed the mound is formed of reworked boulder clay from earlier excavation. There was no evidence of contamination.

“These results support an earlier trial pit investigation in 2014 which confirmed the reworked boulder clay at eight locations could be designated as inert waste. No contamination was encountered during works to erect the extensions.”

Large underground water attenuation tanks are proposed at the northern end, partly below an area known as Luke’s Mound’, discharging into Stocks Beck to the west. Water modelling by Pendle Council engineers and Betts Hydro has informed the design process.

Underground storage is considered to be the most appropriate method, given the site’s industrial character and undergound strata. Installing a open-surfaced attenuation pond would hinder much-needed outdoor space at the constrained site, the report adds.

But a Pendle planning officer’s report states: “Proposals involve levelling a section of the mound to allow the installation of an attenuation tank.

"The earthworks would partially remove the screening effect of the mound and temporarily impact on the public right of way to the north.

“The tank would manage surface water in up to a one-in-30-year rainfall event. Any [rainfall] event greater than that would be attenuated where the public right of way runs.

"The works to flatten the mound and install the attenuation tank would be within the applicant’s land – but outside the application site.

“While planning law allows for approval of work outside an application site in the control of the applicant, where a council thinks it is expedient, the extent, nature and impacts of these proposals go beyond what would be associated with the original permission. It would not be appropriate to grant these without a planning application.”