A CONTROVERSIAL plan which could see more than 200 homes built on the site of a former chemicals plant looks set to be given the green light.

Several major objections have been voiced to the plans for the former William Blythe chemicals plant in Hapton.

MORE TOP STORIES:

But developers Gleeson Homes and Temple Fields have received support from Burnley Council’s development control section, with their proposals for a sprawling new estate, behind Burnley Bridge Business Park, recommended for approval.

Land on the edge of Hapton has been used for chemical processing for 150 years and there is still a hazardous substance consent in place for the site, which the Health and Safety Executive has concerns about but the borough council believes should now be revoked.

Neighbours, the Coal Authority, civic campaigners and wildlife groups have also come out against the bid, which will be discussed tonight at the town hall during a development control committee meeting.

A Coal Authority spokesman said: “The applicant’s ground investigation report acknowledges that mine workings are present within the Arley Mine coal seam and pose a potential risk to stability. Further specialist investigation is required to ensure that the site can be safely developed.”

Neighbours and the parish council said they were worried that the main access road to the planned estate emerges too close to the canal bridge along Manchester Road, which is an acknowledged accident blackspot. Extra traffic would also swamp the village, they fear.

Burnley Civic Trust, Lancashire Local Nature Partnership and Burnley Wildlife Conservation Forum said they were all frustrated that 25 per cent of the site creeps into the green belt, with surrounding land contributing to the nearby Pollard Moor, Hapton Common and Bentley Wood Green Biological Heritage Site.

Parish councillors have also called for a Second World War spigot mortar, a well known local landmark, on the site to be protected, before any work is carried out.

Former mayor Cllr Jean Cunningham said: “I am in favour of housing in principle but there are a number of conditions which they would need to satisfy before it could go ahead, especially if contaminated land or subsidence was an issue.”

Cllr Alan Hosker, another ward councillor, who has also cited problems regarding the site’s chemical-associated history, said: “The entrance to the site is too close to the bridge and the new traffic lights.”

But a report to planning by head of department Sue Belton said: “The development would increase the choice of available new housing at a sustainable location close to an existing village, facilities and public transport.”

The cost of cleaning up the land, and the provision of new public open spaces, qualified the development for approval, outweighing the encroachment into the green belt, the report added.