Lancashire Wildlife Centre Faces Potential Closure Due to Planning Dispute

A charitable remembrance wood and farm in Wrea Green, Lancashire, faces potential closure due to a planning dispute described as “unfair.” Blackburns Farm Nurseries and Wildlife Centre was established by its landowner during the Covid pandemic with the aim of enhancing the local eco-system and fostering a connection between people and nature. However, farm manager Kirsty Cropper stated that modifications requested by planning officers to their original planning consent, specifically concerning the dimensions of a cafe and education centre and the cladding material, render the project “unviable.” Fylde Council, in response, asserted that the constructed development was “significantly different to the approved plans.” The initiative had initially received planning permission, subject to several conditions, which encompassed stipulations regarding the cafe’s size and the building’s cladding material. Subsequently, the landowner lodged an appeal against certain conditions, seeking approval for a larger cafe within the facility and permission to retain the building’s brick exterior instead of using wood cladding, citing that the latter would raise insurance premiums. Ms Cropper commented: “The things they’ve asked us to do we feel are unfair and they also make the project unviable, which seems almost cruel to us.” She added: “The two things we’ve requested out of the 28 they asked for are the only two things we are asking for them to remove.” The operators had intended to utilize revenue generated by the cafe to support the charity and cover the maintenance costs of the remembrance wood, desiring 40% of the building’s space for the dining area. The remembrance wood contains more than 1,200 trees planted across the field. Ms Cropper asserted that the council was “setting us up to fail” and indicated her intention to appeal. A spokesperson for Fylde Council stated that permission was initially granted “in a location were such development would not normally be allowed,” but this was contingent on specific conditions. He further explained that the applicant subsequently “chose to erect a building that was significantly different to the approved plans.” The spokesman added: “Although the council has been able to work with the applicant to successfully resolve some of the discrepancies, others remain which the council feel cannot be compromised.”