Hundreds of objections received for controversial Ponderosa houses planning application as Land Registry documents show a restrictive covenant may cover the land

Date published: 23 August 2023

Hundreds of objections have been received after a controversial planning application for 30 rental homes on a patch of land known as the Ponderosa in Langley, Middleton – which may be covered by a restrictive covenant.

A planning application to build eight new houses and 22 apartments in three blocks has been submitted for land at Borrowdale Park, known to locals as the ‘Ponderosa’.

The project is being driven by Big Help Langley Developments – a community interest company formed by Langley Community Benefits Society and charity The Big Help.

West Middleton councillor Sue Smith – a founder member of the benefits society – says the area is “crying out” for social housing.

But some locals insist The Ponderosa – used for community events and popular with dog walkers and children – is not the place for them.

---

The planning application

The application has been submitted by Big Help Langley Developments CIC, developed in partnership with Langley Community Benefit Society (LCBS) – created to address the provision of affordable rented homes for local people – and Rochdale Borough Council’s Housing Strategy Team.

The plans outline that 22 apartments are proposed, comprised of 12 one-bedroom apartments, four one-bedroom 'cottage style apartments' of two different sizes, plus six one-bedroom apartments intended for the over 55s.

Overall the apartments are intended for a couple, a single downsizer or as a first home.

The eight houses are all intended for “local families with children”, made up of four two-beds, two three-beds and two four-beds.

The plans say: “LCBS was set up with a long-term goal to develop local affordable housing with the priority being to promote local lettings agreements to keep families together within the Langley community.

“As part of a consultation event on 17 March 2023, we wanted to look at what residents see as priorities and this land was highlighted as both a special place but also a neglected place that they wished to see become a community hub.

“People felt passionate about improving the land and increasing its diversity whilst they were keen to not see a conventional play-area. Young parents also felt that the land could provide not only a hub for local wildlife, but also a place where children and families could visit to learn about nature.”

The proposed development describes the area as “poor quality and under-utilised” and “a magnet for anti-social behaviour, drinking and drug use” whilst being “a place for young people to congregate at night.”

 

 

 

It adds that “although it is a field that is loved locally, it is barely used apart from dog walkers due to it being swampy and prone to flooding. It is also very dark with litter and detritus widely thrown across the area and therefore not considered safe to walk at night or alone.”

The plans say the proposed homes will “fit into the existing building style whilst being gently contemporary in style” with one parking space per dwelling.

The plans pledge that the houses will be “100% affordable and offered to local people to rent at no more than the Local Housing Allowance in perpetuity.”

Other proposals included in the plans as part of the works include increasing the biodiversity of the site with rewilding and a new access gateway into the public open space; provision of lighting, seating and refuse collection bins; improve security and create a new access road with traffic calming measures.

The plans state there is also the possibility of a ‘Friends’ of the field group in autumn, ahead of any work beginning.

---

Opposition: village green status and a restrictive covenant

At the time of writing, 310 objections have been received with 63 supporting comments.

Controversial from the start, local residents have pushed back and earlier this year formed The Ponderosa Committee to oppose the plans while Facebook group ‘Commoners Save the Ponderosa, Langley’ has around 1,200 members.

They say the land is too valuable for the community to lose and refute the claims made by the would-be developers, thanks to its versatility for local events, popularity for dog walkers and children, as well as being home to wildlife such as bats, deer and foxes, and the mental health benefits associated with green spaces.

Residents have also questioned how affordable the homes will be, how they can be prioritised for Langley people and who will ultimately benefit from the scheme. The committee says there is already building ‘all over’ Langley – and it doesn’t want homes on The Ponderosa on any terms.

The committee adds that Langley has already undergone much development in recent years, with Borrowdale Road seeing increased traffic to accommodate the recent builds and access to properties.

 

 

Keen to preserve the land and prevent any development, the residents submitted a village green application, which Rochdale Borough Council published on its website.

However, the council says the application “was published in error and is invalid” and withdrew the notice on 15 August.

In a letter sent to the applicants – seen by Rochdale Online – the council says the application is prevented by a trigger event – the aforementioned planning application – set out in the Commons Act 2006.

The village green application was made on 27 June before it was received by Rochdale Council on 4 July.

Despite the planning application being received by the council on 18 July and registered on 10 August, because the land had already been identified for potential development, the village green application cannot be considered unless the planning application is pulled.

Additionally, building on the land may be further complicated by a restrictive covenant, identified under official Land Registry documents.

 

 

Title deeds which cover the land (outlined in red on the map), which includes part of the nearby St. Mary's Primary School, Wood Street, show that a restrictive covenant – preventing most types of development on the site – was put in place after the land was given to the people of Langley, but it is not clear how much of the land is affected by this due to vague wording referencing “other land.”

The text reads: “A Conveyance of the land pink on the title plan [one section of the land covered by the title deeds where part of the school stands today] and other land dated 21 July 1955 made between (1) The Lord Mayor Alderman and Citizens of the City of Manchester (the Corporation) and (2) The County Council for the Administrative County of the County Palatine of Lancaster (the County Council) contains covenants details of which are set out in the schedule of restrictive covenants hereto.”

If the restrictive covenant applies to all of the land identified under the title deeds – not just the aforementioned pink area – only schools and ancillary buildings, together with playgrounds and playing fields, can be erected on the land, whilst at least one third must be left open and unbuilt on.

The conveyance could apply to the whole title deeds outlined in red, or just the area coloured pink. It is hoped by opposers to the plans that the original 1955 conveyance – which is not held by the Land Registry or Rochdale Borough Council – will show clearly how much land is covered by the covenant.

Rochdale Online has also approached Lancashire County Council and Manchester City Council to try and obtain a copy of the 1955 conveyance.

---

A need for social housing and consultations

Residents have expressed dissatisfaction with the consultation process, saying it has been dismissive of dissenting voices and not inclusive of the whole community.

Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service in April, Councillor Smith said people across Langley and Middleton have complained to her for years about the lack of social housing for local people – and many are ‘very much in favour of the proposed scheme and support what will be enhanced green space with social housing’.
 

Read more: ‘We just want to keep our beautiful field’: Community split over ‘affordable homes’ plan for estate’s green spacePublished: 17 April 2023

“Far too often, people tell me their family members had to move away from Middleton because they can’t get social housing locally,” she told the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

“I also get lots of people contacting me on a daily basis for my help in finding them an affordable home. I also hear this every time I knock on doors on Langley as a councillor.”

 

 

Councillor Smith says she recognises that some people are not in favour of the scheme, but claims the proposed new homes would only take up about a quarter of the site.

She also says that – contrary to some ‘misleading statements’ – the land is not owned by Big Help Langley company, nor has it been gifted to the company or herself for £1.

However, a viability document submitted as part of the planning application says Big Help Langley Developments “have assumed that any land transfer would be undertaken at £1” - subject to approval by Rochdale Borough Council’s cabinet.

A consultation carried out by Rochdale Borough Council between 21 October 2020 to 9 November 2020 saw 43 of 45 respondents agree there is a need for social housing/flats on the Langley estate.

A participatory appraisal consultation by Big Help Langley Developments on 17 March saw 53 people attend and largely found people were “generally happy” to live in the area but identified “a lack of social housing and families being split up due to this.”

It says its overall findings showed people are “very divided about the building of the properties.

“Residents who are supportive feel that this a good thing and that there isn’t enough affordable housing on the estate. People who do not want the houses are general unhappy they will lose their view, their field and that it will continue months of building in the area after other developers have been building locally for a while.

“Other areas of concern via social media have been: the houses will not remain affordable; they will not go to local people; that residents are being lied to by the partners and this dates back to houses in the past being pulled down and developers building houses that have not be affordable to residents who want to remain in Langley; and concern about the wildlife on the field.”

 

 

When asked what they would improve locally, 10 people said “more affordable housing” with one saying “housing, not here.”

Two people said they would like to see affordable homes if the houses were built; conversely, four people said they did not want houses build on the space. Two people said they did not want to see one bed apartments whilst one person said they wanted homes for the disabled. One person did not want homes for the disabled.

Verbatim comments from the participatory appraisal consultation included both positive and negative responses, such as:

• ‘What a good idea! Seen the plans, it's far from Grange Walk, the flats on Borrowdale have been taken into consideration with the view, the rest of the wasteland will be landscaped (long time needed) houses by the boundary of St Mary's, the rest landscaped? I'm not sure what the issue is?’
• ‘I’m have a split opinion. I don’t want any houses built on the field but then who is to stop a private development flattening the whole lot which no input whatsoever ‘
• ‘The estate cannot cope with any more properties. The infrastructure needs to be taken into consideration before any permission is given. You cannot get a doctor/dentist appointment. Traffic is really heavy especially at school times, there is nowhere to park its absolutely horrendous.’
• ‘I've lived on Langley for 56 years I once lived on Grisdale Drive when I was in infants me and friends always played on this land and it has always been bog land same as now always soaking but why is it when it comes to building homes for Langley people we get the rubbish every bit of good land construction companies got I'm all for housing for local (meaning local) people but within 2-3years they will start sinking we was promised so much when Riverside took over but all we got was crap windows doors kitchens and now service charges for things we don't even receive.’
• ‘Try building and the estate will do everything to stop it. Keep off our fields’
• ‘We've needed affordable housing for years as opposed to private development The most negative comments are the not on my doorstep type.’
• ‘Silly question? After the houses are built and there is still land left over, what’s to stop another developer coming along and building on that land. Or will the Big Help own all the land and guarantee that the land that is left will never be built on.’
• ‘I love wildlife more than people. I came to the consultation as I wanted to do everything in my power to stop the build. After a conversation with Big Help, who confirmed their plans to help wildlife in and around the development, I would now support and offer to participate in these plans.’

Additionally, a Facebook poll referenced by the participatory appraisal consultation says 58% of people wanted new houses on the land, whilst 42% did not. It is unclear how many respondents took part in this particular poll.

Conversely, a Facebook poll by Facebook group ‘Commoners Save the Ponderosa, Langley’ has recorded 488 people opposing the build, and nine votes in favour of it.

---

 

 

Building elsewhere?

Alternative sites have been suggested for the homes, however the Design and Access Statement submitted with the plan claims none of the 30 other identified sites were suitable.

It reads: “It was found that none of the sites identified in Langley could yield the capacity that would make them a viable option for development for affordable rent at no more than the Local Housing Allowance.

“The ownership of some sites could not be established. Some of the sites had significant potential planning issues and some were established green open space.”

---

Have your say

The application will be decided by Rochdale Borough Council at a future planning meeting.

Anyone wishing to comment on the planning application, either in support or objection, can do so via the council’s planning portal.