Controversial plans for more than 200 homes in the Saddleworth countryside compared to a ‘saveloy sausage’ have been approved despite dozens of objections.
Proposals to build a £3 million road and up to 265 homes on land in Springhead were first refused in November 2018 but subsequently given approval in July 2019. Local campaign group Save Our Valleys raised more than £50,000 to launch a legal challenge to the decision but a judge ruled against their bid for a judicial review in December 2020.
The road was given full planning approval three years ago, but the homes element of the plan for the Knowls Lane site required further detailed permission. Developer Russell Homes subsequently applied to the council for reserved matters permission for 234 homes to be built on the site. These were proposed to be split between five, four, three and two bed houses, which would be a mix of detached and semi-detached.
READ MORE: Recycling centre ‘struggling to cope’ with huge queues reveals plan to tackle congestion
There were 63 public objections to the plans, and Saddleworth Parish Council also objected. At a committee meeting, planning officer Graham Dickman said there were no objections outstanding from statutory consultees, including United Utilities and the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit.
However resident Jane Barker, who spoke against the application, said: “This is yet another Knowls Lane application with missing information and unanswered questions.”
She said that some of the planned houses could be at risk of subsidence due to their location near to historic coal mine workings on the land.
“If you ordered a sirloin steak in a restaurant and were served a saveloy sausage you’d send it back. This is the equivalent of a saveloy sausage and should be sent back until all the outstanding questions have been answered,” she added. “This development should deliver the very best considering everything that the community will lose.”
Thomas Relf, the land and planning manager at Russell Homes, told councillors his firm want to create an ‘attractive new place for sustainable family living’.
“Since the application was submitted it has evolved through discussions with officers, statutory consultees, as well as having taken on board comments from residents,” he added.
But councillor Max Woodvine said: “Are developers comfortable with allowing properties be built on unstable land over a mine shaft at risk of subsidence and which the Coal Authority will not approve of?”
Coun Mark Kenyon, Liberal Democrat member for Saddleworth West and Lees, also attended to speak against the application. He said: “The developer’s application boils down to a blank cheque, where the developer fills in the details later and comes back to the officer for a conditions discharge at the end of the process.
“The coal mine which the Coal Authority has warned the developer about has not been dealt with. I feel like I’m dealing with my kids here, I want to say ‘are you sure you’ve had a proper look’. That’s not good enough colleagues.”
Mr Relph replied to say they have to get permits from the Coal Authority in order to do the building work, and these include site investigations to determine whether there is a ‘legacy mine’ on the land.
“It is very commonplace for mine shafts to be located under development sites through the legacy of mining across Lancashire and Greater Manchester, this is not uncommon,” he added. “Mitigation measures will potentially include additional foundation structures that will provide as noted when the Coal Authority review further.”
The meeting was told that 53 of the homes would be designated as affordable properties.
Chair of planning Peter Richards said the committee was determining matters relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and ‘that is all’.
“While I appreciate that the outline to reserved matters condition discharge process can be confusing, can be less than ideal shall we say, it is the system we have as a planning system in this country and we have to work within it,” he said. “So many of the matters that are being raised tonight are not matters for this application, they are matters for discharge of conditions.”
Mr Richards said that if the consultees found issues with the layout further down the line, the developer would have to come back with a new reserved matters application.
“These matters are not being ignored, they are being dealt with but they are separate from what you as the committee are being asked to consider,” he added, saying these included the concerns about the coal mine issues.
Chair of the planning committee, Coun Peter Dean said: “This is nothing at all unusual, this is really par for the course.”
However Coun Woodvine said to approve the application in its current form would be a ‘dereliction of duty’.
“We’re not here to satisfy the applicant or the developers, we’re here to demand the best applications and the best developments for the borough,” he added. “I’m not happy with this application but I don’t think I can say anything else that will change anybody’s mind. Councillors will make their own decision but I don’t think we should be approving it.”
Coun Fida Hussain added: “I share the concerns of residents of the area.”
However he said it was ‘not in the gift’ of the committee to refuse the application without the decision being overturned at appeal, and therefore moved that it be approved.
Four councillors voted to defer a decision on the application, but they were defeated – with seven councillors voting to approve it.
READ NEXT:
