199-home residential development at Land West Of Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough

What was proposed

The application sought up to 199 homes with a new access, internal roads, parking, walking and cycling routes, gardens and open space.

“Report Title: Report to Planning Committee Application Number 22/01364/FUL Proposal Residential development: erection of up to 199 dwellings including vehicular access on to Smithy Bridge Road, with internal highways, car parking, footpaths, cycle paths, boundaries, gardens, open space and other associated works Site Land to the West of Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough Applicant Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd (and The Trustees Of The Wood Trust And David Anthony Buckley…”

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of 199 houses together with the creation of a new vehicular access onto Smithy Bridge Road as well as other associated works including; internal highways, car parking, footpath and cycle path, boundaries, gardens and open space.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The previously undeveloped site consists mainly of open fields beside the River Roch, with rights of way, trees, hedges, allotments and flood-risk areas.

“The site is previously undeveloped and mostly comprises open fields, with a few scattered trees and hedges around the perimeter of the site and a hedge line around a field to the west of the site. There is also a…”

“The site was previously allocated as protected open land and a greenspace corridor, and under GM Places for Everyone, it has been allocated as a site suitable for the development of around 200 houses (Policy JP Allocation 22: Roch Valley). The land immediately adjacent the River Roch is located within flood zones 2 and 3 and much of the site is in a critical drainage area.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier screening opinion for a residential scheme of up to 199 homes concluded that an environmental impact assessment was not required.

“22/00828/SO - Request for screening opinion in relation to a proposed residential development of up to 199 dwellings with associated access, parking, landscaping including sustainable drainage features, open space and play facilities – EIA not required…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the housing allocation supported the principle and the proposal was considered acceptable overall, subject to conditions and obligations.

“PfE Policy JPA-22 allocates the site for development of around 200 homes (including provision of larger houses and affordable housing). This allocation confirms that the proposed construction of 199 dwellings would be acceptable in principle. The delivery of new housing on this allocation would therefore contribute to achieving the broad aims and objectives of PfE Policy JP-H1, and CS Policies SP1 and SP2.”

“For these reasons, the residential element of the proposal would accord with the requirements of the policy allocating it for development and would therefore be acceptable in principle.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways officers found access, parking and road safety acceptable, while environmental, ecological, drainage and heritage consultees supported approval with safeguards.

“Third comments - This residential development and the construction of the relief road is of critical importance to the improvement of the highways network in this area. Level of parking provision and site access onto Smithy Bridge Road is acceptable. No road safety concerns as a result of this proposal.”

“Second comments – Confirmation that the strategy for the disposal of foul and surface water is acceptable in principle, but there are elements of the detailed drainage design that might not be acceptable. Recommend that these matters are resolved prior to determination but suggested condition that would address the outstanding matters is also provided.”

Officer report

What people said

Objectors and neutral respondents raised concerns about traffic, flooding, wildlife, services, pollution, privacy, construction and the loss of open space.

“Environmental impact • Harm to wildlife including badgers, deer and bats • There is a large bat population at the site • Recent flooding events will be exacerbated • Increased air / light pollution • The site currently acts as an important drainage field • Loss of greenspace • Loss of biodiversity • Loss of TPO trees…”

“Environmental impact • Loss of wildlife • Loss of greenspace • The site is susceptible to flooding during periods of heavy rainfall • The additional hardstanding would increase likelihood of the Roch flooding downstream undermining the integrity of new flood defences • The proposals will cause nearby farmland to flood Increased air pollution due to increased traffic…”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

The principal planning officer introduced the application, and the agent, two objectors and three councillors addressed the committee.

The committee vote

Members voted six in favour of approval, four against and one abstention.

“It was MOVED and SECONDED that the application be approved.”

“On being put to the vote, SIX VOTES were cast IN FAVOUR of approval, FOUR VOTES were cast AGAINST and there was ONE ABSTENTION.”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was granted subject to planning conditions and a section 106 agreement, including the stated heads of terms.

“DECISION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to planning conditions and a s106 agreement, including heads of terms, as set out in the report.”

Minutes