PLANS to build 128 new homes on the edge of Barnoldswick look set to be approved by officers - after they have double-checked reports on flooding and drainage.

Strong concerns over flooding at the site off Long Ing Lane were raised at yesterday's (Thursday's) planning meeting of Pendle Council and a move was made to reject the scheme, against officer recommendation to approve it.

But after an almost two hour debate, an alternative motion to delegate approval to the assistant director planning, building control and regulatory services after they first reviewed reports from statutory consultees, won through, by five votes to four.

Developers Seddon Homes plan to build 128 homes on the site of the former Barnsay Shed, includes a new access off Long Ing Lane.

The Leeds and Liverpool Canal forms one of the boundary's of the site, which was given outline planning permission for 148 homes in 2016. The homes will be a mixture of detached, semi-detached and blocks of three houses comprising 101 three bedroom and 27 four bedroom houses, six of which will be affordable. The houses will be finished in artificial stone and concrete tile roofs.

Members at the meeting of the council's development management committee at the Rolls Royce Social Club in Barnoldswick, were reminded that because of a previous reserved matters appeal decision, the only remaining grounds to object to the current scheme was on flooding and drainage issues.

All other issues, such as highways issues and noise coming from neighbouring Silentnight impacting on residents of the new homes, had been considered and dealt with as the application had progressed through the council and at appeal.

The most recent appeal in 2020 had been dismissed on flooding and drainage grounds - but those issues had now been addressed by the applicant and to the satisfaction of all the relevant independent experts.

Senior planning officer, Laura Barnes, strongly advised councillors against a refusal on flooding grounds, because legal advice was that would incur costs against the council - if the applicant chose to go to appeal.

She also reminded councillors that 'anecdotal' evidence from residents and others could not be used when there were no objections from the experts at Lancashire County Council Local Flood Authority, Earby and Salterforth Internal Drainage Board, and the Environment Agency.

The report to the committee states: "The application proposes to create an infiltration basin of at least equal storage capacity to the depression that currently collects water on the site. This would capture and attenuate the surface water flows from the north of the site and it has been acceptably demonstrated that this would ensure that the development does not increase the risk of off-site flooding."

Nevertheless, Barnoldswick councillor David Whipp, who is also chair of the West Craven Area Committee, which recommended refusal of the plan, urged his fellow members to reject the scheme on grounds of flooding and drainage.

Cllr Whipp told the meeting of how 'Ing' - was the old English word for lake -the name of the road and how for three months of the year the land was like a lake.

Cllr Whipp, who passed around pictures of flooding at the site, talked about the removal of peaty sand from the site to be replaced by inert material for building purposes, and how that would impact on the site's natural use as a flood basin and how in his opinion the infiltration basin would not work.

"The huge amount of water that is there will not be accommodated in a small infiltration area. I feel there is a real risk of flooding effecting downstream as a consequence of this development."

But Cllr Kieran McGladdery said while he understood the concerns of residents, it was clear that the council faced a risk of costs if the application was refused on grounds that were not able to be defended at appeal.

His suggestion that the council seek alternative flooding and drainage advice was rejected by the planning officer who pointed out that independent experts had already given their opinions.

"I think if we approve this as it is, it will not satisfy residents, but if we ask officers to review all the technical reports, I am happy to delegate consent. The risk is clear, if we do refuse, we run the risk of costs."

The meeting heard from the developer that building work was likely to take around two years.