Councillor Farnell promises ‘brownfield filled first’ for Greater Manchester Spatial Framework proposals

Councillor Farnell promises ‘brownfield filled first’

Speaking at Wednesday night’s council meeting, Leader of the Council, Councillor Richard Farnell promised brownfield sites will be filled first before one foundation is laid on Green Belt land. He said the council has already sold four brownfield sites for development.

He added: “There’s been lots of opportunities for people to comment and their views will be taken into consideration. Plans will change depending on the response of the consultation; it’s down to each individual authority to decide. A second draft proposal will be released late next year.

“Developments will be removed from the framework if there’s no case to move forward after the initial consultation period ends.”

This came in response after Councillor Peter Winkler asked how to make sure the 70% of brownfield land quoted would be filled and prevent more green belt land being ‘eaten up’ than proposed.

Councillor Farnell said: “We have missed out on a 20-year period of economic growth in this area, which the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework addresses. We are the only borough with a shrinking population and housing shortages. It’s as important as that.

“We can’t allow ‘nimbyism’ (Not In My Back Yard) with no legitimate objections and the views that their houses built should be the last ones. We need to be firm and provide the land for growth and opportunities.”

Over 15,000 new homes are expected to be developed across the borough as part of the GMSF, affecting Roch Valley in Smallbridge, Trows Farm in Castleton, land to the north east of Smithy Bridge, Bamford and Norden, and land at Lane End, east of Heywood.

All councillors whose wards are affected by the proposals were approached for comment with councillors Jane Howard, Ian Duckworth, Michael Holly, John Hartley and Andy Kelly replying:

Councillor Jane Howard (Bamford)

“I feel that is completely unacceptable to lose our greenbelt and question whether all brownfield have been considered. I also feel that it should be up to local communities to determine the plans for their area and that to simply put a pin in the map as part of a Greater Manchester plan is not the right way to go about it.

“The impact of 750 executive detached homes will devastate the rural character of Bamford, which makes it such an attractive place to live. There is simply not the infrastructure to take the resulting increase in traffic which already means roads are at a standstill in the morning. The demand on local schools, which are already oversubscribed, and services such as doctors and dentists would be immense.

“We would also lose 11 football pitches, footpaths, bridleways and a well-used tennis and cricket club which in a time when Rochdale rates highly for levels of obesity and ill-health, we simply cannot afford to lose.”

Councillor Ian Duckworth (Bamford)

“The proposals to build 750 properties on the green belt in Bamford ward go against the Spatial Framework’s own criteria on the grounds of infrastructure, access to transport ,carbon emissions, flood prevention, use of brown field sites, access to the countryside and sports facilities (which are to be built on),the National Planning Policy Framework’s five principles on the green belt, which includes stopping areas becoming one large conurbation and the main founding principle that the most important thing about the green belt is its permanence.

“Nowhere have I found any document that states it is okay to build in wealthy areas, which it is not, as the leader of the Council seems to think.

“We had a meeting on this proposal at Bamford Chapel on what must have been the worst evening of the year, with torrential rain and a driving wind. Estimates puts the number who attended at around 300.

“That speaks louder than words.”

Councillor Michael Holly (Norden)

“I appreciate the need for the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework given the projected levels of new jobs expected to be created and the expected rise in population over the next 20 years. However, it seems to me that the way in which individual development sites have been identified is flawed in some cases.

“I am particularly concerned with the proposed development in Bamford, which also goes into my ward of Norden. This proposal in my view is completely unacceptable. Not only will it remove a whole chunk of precious green belt between Bamford and Norden, but at a time when exercise is being encouraged for all it would remove important sporting facilities.

“To lose three junior football pitches, a cricket club, and a tennis club, of which I was treasurer for a number of years, is frankly madness. There will be arguments put forward that they can be moved, but to where, at what cost and the disruption will undoubtedly have a serious impact on participants. Madness.

“From a specific Norden perspective my main concern is traffic congestion. The bottom of Norden Road and War Office Road are already highly congested in the morning rush hours at the moment. What will adding the commuter traffic from an additional 750 executive style houses, with probably at least two cars per household, do to this; it will be a nightmare.

“This proposal should be stopped now and the local Bamford Green Belt Action Group has my full support.”

Councillor John Hartley (Littleborough Lakeside)

“We would need more roads if more houses were built as at peak times the roads coming in and out of Littleborough are already heavily congested and struggling to cope with the number of vehicles as it is, however I would always be in favour of building on brownfield sites first as I strongly object to the building in our green belt areas. We need to protect what green space we have left in our local area.”

Councillor Andy Kelly (Milnrow and Newhey)

"I’m very concerned that the Greater Manchester Spacial Framework has not given residents enough time to respond to the consultation, nor that they have been given the full picture. This is the biggest planning decision we have to make since the Second World War and it has to be right."

"At the public consultation last week, residents heard that in addition to industrial developments, around 120 houses were being considered for green belt land in Milnrow & Newhey. That was only a small part of the story however. What it didn’t say was that along with almost half a million square metres of commercial space, around 1400 houses are being considered just across the River Beale in the Shaw area of Oldham. Residents need to be aware of this. The fact of the matter is that there is no joined up thinking with other authorities. Council Leader Richard Farnell is getting an extra £5,000 a year to control the consultation across Greater Manchester. It is his lack of transparency and failure to recognise Borough boundaries that is making this consultation so shambolic."

"In the meantime, I am working with my counterpart - Councillor Howard Sykes in Oldham to ensure that residents see the whole picture. Residents can make a decision on how they react accordingly.

"Local people in the area are more concerned with traffic congestion (bottle necked at Kiln Lane and Jubilee Bridge), ongoing flooding problems that will be exacerbated by further developments, the affect on services and the overall air quality in the ward due to the congestion on the M62."

The complete plans can be viewed at https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/GMSF or view them in person at Number One Riverside and Middleton, Heywood and Littleborough libraries.

The public consultation runs until 5pm on 23 December.

Have your say:

GMSF@agma.gov.uk