A DISTURBING logic exists in the case of safety officials' consent for a new East Lancashire housing development just yards from a chemical factory -- homes which councillors do not want to be built because they say there would be too much of a risk to residents if there was a leak from the plant

It is that the Health and Safety Executive evidently agrees that there is a risk in homes being built on the site of the former Lower Antley Reservoir at Blackburn Road, Church, close by the William Blythe chemical plant, but consider it is acceptable if the development is limited to 60 houses.

Most of us -- and particularly residents of Church and Oswaldtwistle affected by past leaks from other chemical works in the area -- would, surely, argue that a risk cannot be reduced, or, for that matter, increased, by the number of people who may be exposed to it.

And that if one exists, it is wiser and safer for none, rather than a restricted number to be in jeopardy.

Yet this commonsense view, adopted by Hyndburn Council, is superseded by the HSE which has to vet all proposed developments inside the 'consultation zone' around the factory. It says that the figure of 60 houses relates to the number of residents who can be given 'a measure of protection and moved away quickly in the event of an accident.'

The difference in these two views amounts to what is regarded as an acceptable risk.

Understandably, Hyndburn councillors prefer it to be none. But is it not perverse and undemocratic that their views and local knowledge may not prevail over those of an unelected body, however independent or expert? And that if they were to refuse planning consent of the grounds of wanting total, rather than partial, safety, there is every chance the development would be allowed on appeal?

Encouragingly, they are not backing down yet -- and are calling in consultants to re-examine the plan. But what sort of reassurance is there in the regulations all the parties are governed by -- if they ratify a risk at the outset?