A business units plan for a Longridge farm site has been rejected by Ribble Valley councillors, who heard they had gone from being offered ‘an Eiffel Tower to a Blackpool Tower’ instead.

Councillors feared the plan for Higher College Farm on Lower Road looked too ‘industrial’ for a rural setting and could also in time become a retail site harmful to Longridge town centre.

Applicant David Holmes of Ribble Valley Properties Ltd wanted permission to build 34 units, solar power facilities, car parking and road access at the site. His application was considered at Ribble Valley Council’s latest planning meeting.

Paul Walton, of PWA Planning, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He said: “This aligns with the council’s aims regarding economic growth. But it is much more than that. It comes from a successful entrepreneur and will support many local jobs and the local economy.

“It demonstrates a commitment to show the Ribble Valley is where enterprise can flourish. It strikes the right balance and is deemed acceptable in all technical aspects. It is designed to a very high quality for sustainability and includes solar PV technology. It delivers on local plan objectives and is sensitive to its location.

“The only thing the applicant is at odds with is that he would like to change the suggested operating hours and make Sunday hours the same as Saturday. Modest changes should be allowed because they will make significant significant contributions.”

Conservative Coun Mark Hindle said: “It’s really refreshing to see an application like this which will create jobs and also has environmental design with the top specifications.  In sunny weather, it could well be self-sufficient. If an extra hour is not detrimental to Longridge residents then I would support that. But perhaps we’ll get feedback from Longridge councillors?”

Labour Coun Kieren Spencer said: ” I am torn by this. I have no problem with the proposed times and I support the economic opportunities this could bring. However, I am concerned that this does not align with our core strategy, saying development in the open countryside must be in-keeping with the landscape character and acknowledge the area’s special qualities through size, design, materials, landscaping and site.

“While the site is designated employment land it is also in open countryside.  So this committee has an obligation to ensure any proposal meets the highest standards.

“The officers report says the plan aligns with policy aims. However, I disagree. This plan fails to sufficiently respect the landscape’s character.  It includes four large industrial-style blocks containing 34 units and has more has 100 parking spaces. It would fundamentally alter the area. What is currently a rural farmstead would become a large, industrial-style site.

“To be clear, I am not opposed to developing this site nor in bringing the economic opportunities, as it lies so close to my Longridge ward. However, this is the wrong type of development for this location.

“We know it’s possible to deliver developments which are more sympathetic. Ribchester’s Manor Court is an excellent example, as is The Planks in Garstang. Even the applicant for this Longridge site has previously submitted plans that were far-more in-keeping – and were rightly approved. The previous application set a standard and proves it is possible to deliver development that aligns with policy.

“I was not a councillor when the previous application was considered.  I would have had no issue supporting it. But what concerns me is seeing a pattern of strong, well thought-out applications being approved, only for them to replaced later with sub-standard alternatives. Over time, we lose sight of the original benchmark This is a prime example of that regression.  Instead of delivering the Eiffel Tower, we are being asked to accept a Blackpool Tower. A far cry from what was originally planned.”

Independent Coun Ian Brown said on balance he would probably support the plan. He said: “I understand different views. But we have to take each application on its merit and cannot consider what might happen in future. I would still support this.”

However, Conservative Coun Simon Hore said: “This site has been designated for a long time but we have had relatively few applications. I am also torn by it. We’ve had some cases of employment units elsewhere being used for other purposes than what was expected. There is a risk of business pull-outs from the high street to satellite locations.  I would not support extending the operating hours because that makes the site more risky of high street uses.”

Conservative Kevin Horkin said: ” I welcome the job creation potential with this but we have seen other applications turn into something utterly different to what was planned. Look at the A59 at Clitheroe. That was not supposed to be a retail park. But look at it now.

“We need to think about retail in Longridge.  I cannot think why this plan has been changed. There was a good application on the table. But now it looks like they’re trying to add a bit more value. That does not sit well with me.

“Also this council’s enforcement is not great.  We have two enforcement officers., We used to have four or six?  So, with a heavy heart, I cannot support this.”

Green Coun Malcom Peplow: “There’s a fantastic development in Mitton Road, Whalley, that sits well in its setting. Regarding Longridge, I would be happy to support a design which Longridge councillors supported. So this is not opposed in principle. We’re not saying no, never. We’re saying it’s possible but come back again.”

Planning officers said proposed conditions would restrict the site to certain types of business and not retail.

But in a vote, councillors said they were ‘minded to refuse’ the plan. The application will come back to the committee next month to confirm the wording of the refusal.