COUNTRYSIDE campaigners have been gearing up to fight plans to build nearly 40 luxury homes in the Ribble Valley.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) wants the council to veto the project in Brockhall Village, a community controversially created on the former Brockhall Hospital site after it was bought by developer Gerald Hitman in the early 1990s.

Last week, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph revealed Brockhall Village Ltd - Mr Hitman's company - wanted to build a three-storey block of luxury apartments, as well as a swimming pool, village hall, Jacuzzi and sauna, and 13 ground-breaking 'work/live' homes.

The company claims there is high demand for the properties and believe they would help achieve a mix of employment and residential use. Ribble Valley Council currently has a ban on new housing projects falling outside of the 'affordable homes' category - ones which local people would be able to get a mortgage for.

But because outline planning consent exists for more houses on the Brockhall site from before the luxury homes ban, developers hope to get permission for the new project.

In a letter to the council, the Ribble Valley branch of the CPRE states the authority should take a stand. David King, its chairman, said: "The idea of putting businesses on the site means any employees would have to travel a fair distance just to get to the site. It's clear that attempts to attract employers in the past have failed.

"And while the first owner of these 'work/live' units might use a room as an office, who will police it in years to come?

"They'll just become a playroom or extension. This is a thinly-veiled ploy to get round planning regulations."

Other objections include the impact on the environment, with the apartments overlooking countryside, and the pressure it will put on nearby roads.

In its application, agents for Brockhall Village Ltd, DTZ Pieda Consulting, said it has commissioned experts to prove there is a demand for 'work/live' units.

They added that by giving the work part of the units a different planning category, they could never legally become extensions of domestic homes.