A PLAN to end nasty smells from a plucking factory wafting across the Ribble Valley have been scrapped after councillors refused permission for the site to be used for two houses.

Members of the council's planning and development committee refused a request for permission to allow The Plucking Hall, Ward Green Lane, Ribchester, to be used for housing.

The plucking hall, used to remove feathers from chickens, has been in the area for as long as most people can remember.

Described as 'legendary' by planning consultant Janet Dickson, who spoke in favour of the plan, the factory is well-know for creating foul smells which drift throughout the area.

The site was the subject of a request to be used for 'light industrial use' last year.

That request was withdrawn when councillors indicated that they were likely to refuse it.

Janet Dickson said: "That application was withdrawn so not to blight the site, but it is effectively blighted anyway now. "The owner has tried to sell the land for the last 12 months and this development appears to be the only option.

"It is on a brownfield site so is suitable for redevelopment and it would not be the first time such a site has been used for houses.

"There would be no noxious smells in the future and it would create a much better environment for people locally."

Jokingly, she urged the councillors not to be chicken and shy away from the scheme.

Her plea was backed by Longridge councillor Jim Rogerson, who said: "I cannot see what else the land can be used for. We have effectively turned down an employment option here.

"We aren't going to get some prestigious office block on this site because no one would relocate there."

Longridge councillor Mary Wilson added: "This is a brownfield site. It is also a walking area and I think building two houses here would significantly improve the look of the area."

But Coun Frank Dyson said: "It would be promoting more development in rural areas and cannot be allowed."

Development services manager John Macholc told the committee that arguing that problems caused by an existing premises would be removed if the site was used for something else were not generally acceptable.

A report from the county's environment directorate objected to the proposal because it would mean the occupiers would be solely reliant on their cars to get anywhere.

The council's report also suggested more effort could be made to market the site for employment uses.

Councillors backed officers' requests to refuse the application.