PLANS to allocate a controversial site for house building sparked fury at Pendle full council meeting.
The council is in the process of re-drawing its map of potential sites for homes in the borough and has taken out Gib Hill, a large tract of open land between Nelson and Colne, and added four hectares of fields off Windermere Avenue, Colne.
The inclusion of land off Windermere Avenue, where the council has previously refused planning permission for homes and won one appeal, infuriated Liberal Democrat ward councillors Alan Davies and Jo Belbin.
The site was included subject to further consideration following a six-week consultation with local residents.
Coun Belbin told the meeting: "We have not gone out to consultation on this and yet it is being added to the housing list.
"We have already won one appeal against houses on this land. This is a retrograde step."
Coun Davies added: "All the reasons for not building on that land remain. I'm proud of the consultation record of this council. Every time there has been a major decision that affects the lives of people in this area we have gone out to consultation. There has been no consultation on this."
But Labour group leader Azhar Ali argued: "The fact is Gib Hill is outside the settlement boundary while Windermere Avenue is inside it. Not In My Back Yard is the attitude of the ward councillors."
The move to include Windermere Avenue on the housing list was won by a single vote.
Residents will also be consulted over proposals to include land behind St John Southworth Primary School, Lomeshaye Road, Nelson, and will be asked to suggest suitable sites in Barnoldswick.
Part of the former Smith & Nephew Stonebridge Mill site, North Valley Road, Colne, which is earmarked for a business and retail park, is also allocated for homes.
Land at Lenches, Colne, and Moss Side, Barnoldswick, was also taken off the list of possible housing sites and the five-hectare site off Southfield Street, Nelson, reduced to three.
The area set aside for housing was cut from 30 hectares to 26, half the original figure of 50 hectares that was reduced in a previous review.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article