68 affordable homes at Land Off Failsworth Road, Failsworth, Oldham

What was proposed

The application proposed 68 affordable homes, with access works, turning points and green infrastructure, providing 100% affordable housing.

“Proposal: Erection of 68 no. affordable dwellings (100% affordable housing scheme) with associated works such as access road, turning points and green infrastructure.”

“The application proposes the erection of a total of 68 dwellings, access works and associated green infrastructure. The proposed dwellings would be sited within the northern part of the site while the southern section would be retained as is, with the exception of removal of some invasive species and replacing them with some tree planting.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a 3.3-hectare area of open fields in the Green Belt, used for grazing, beside residential areas, open fields and a stream.

“The application site is located on the west side of Failsworth Road, Failsworth, and comprises of open fields. The site is stated to be 3.3 hectares in area, is gently undulating in topography, and is wholly located within the Green Belt.”

“To the immediate north and west of the site are established residential areas while Failsworth Road defines the eastern boundary of the site. To the immediate south are open fields. A stream (Lord’s Brook) flows adjacent the southern section of the site and there are some public rights of way in the vicinity of the site. The site is stated to be currently used for grazing purposes.”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier application for 13 homes was refused in 1992 because of Green Belt impact and inadequate access.

“In 1992, under planning application reference PA/028478/92, outline permission was refused for a residential development comprising of the erection of 13no. dwellings for reasons relating to impact on Green Belt and substandard access.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development was inappropriate in the Green Belt and the proposed access would harm highway safety.

“The site is located within the Green Belt and the proposed development amounts to inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Such development would be harmful and national policies require that they be restricted.”

“Whilst the site comprises grey belt land, the proposal would not satisfy the requirements of Policy GB7(g)ii of the NPPF neither would the application site constitute a rural exception site as it does not adjoin a rural area. The development would as such amount to inappropriate development within the Green Belt.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways and planning policy objected, while several other consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or gave no objection.

“CONSULTEE FORMAL RESPONSE Environmental Health Formal response received. Raised no objection subject to conditions relating to land contamination as well as noise mitigation and CMP.”

“Natural England Formal comments received. Raised no objection. Archaeology Formal response received. No objection raised. LLFA Formal comments received. No objection subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Public views

The application received 623 objections, two supporting letters and a 273-signature petition, with concerns including Green Belt, flooding, wildlife and highways.

“In response, 623 objections have been received, while 2 letters of support were received. A petition against the proposal containing 273 signatures was also received. The material planning issues raised in the objection representations are summarised below:”

“Impact on Green Belt – noting that the proposal would impact on openness and would be a speculative release of Green Belt land, contrary to policies (addressed in Section 10 of the report). • The site is not ‘Grey Belt’ – noting that the site had never been formally assessed or designated as ‘Grey Belt’ through the Local Plan process (addressed in Section 10 of the report).”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

An objector, the applicant and ward members attended and addressed the committee.

The vote

A refusal motion was proposed and seconded, then passed unanimously.

“It was MOVED by Councillor Akhtar and SECONDED by Councillor Iqbal that the application be REFUSED.”

“On being put to the vote, it was UNANIMOUSLY cast IN FAVOUR OF REFUSAL.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application for the reasons outlined in the report.

“RESOLVED: That the application be REFUSED for the reasons outlined in the report.”

Minutes