The owner of a Lancashire park who applied to site an additional six park homes within the lawful park boundary has had his plans rendered invalid. We learn more…

A Lancashire park owner, who was granted a full residential park licence for 26 homes only last December, has had a further application for an additional six homes ruled ‘invalid’.

Mr Culligan of Prospect Farm Park, in Lenches Road, Colne, submitted plans to Pendle Council last month asking to expand the offering on the land.
The site currently has permission to host 26 residential park home units following an approval, which was granted on 8 December last year.

That approval changed the use of the site to solely residential, confirming that the park is suitable for additional residential uses.

A planning statement lodged with the application read: ‘Prospect Farm is a residential caravan site, located on the south side of Colne. The site’s topography and the existing mature boundary planting means that the site and the existing caravans are not widely visible from outside the park envelope.

‘Since purchasing the site, the owners have invested significant capital to upgrade the park’s aesthetics and facilities.

‘The addition of six mobile homes would make a positive contribution to housing supply and choice in Pendle.

‘There are also social benefits including provision of single storey living and accessible housing for elderly, that is further supported by the fact the site offers 24-hour on-site management and the gardening/landscape services. There are also economic benefits to the local area through tax revenue and support for local services and businesses.

‘The site currently contains high quality caravans that make a positive contribution to the council’s residential housing mix.
‘On-site aesthetics have recently been upgraded with the land now forming a
well-maintained landscaped site, that offers residents a peaceful, well-connected, alternative to traditional housing.’
Despite this, Pendle Council rendered the application invalid in May, but no additional documentation was provided to elaborate on the decision.