Issue - meetings

Report of the Leader of the Council is attached.

The Leader presented three reports regarding the results of the consultations on Development Framework Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) for Simister Bowlee, Walshaw, and Elton Reservoir, and seeking approval for the final SPDs to be adopted. It was noted that these reports were discussed in detail at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting the previous evening, and recommendations had been noted.

In response to Members’ questions, it was noted that:

• Any planning application would wait until a site-wide ecology strategy for Walshaw was in place; this, as for all evidence, would need to be in place either before or alongside applications.
• The Infrastructure, Phasing and Delivery Strategy for Elton Reservoir was a live document primarily used by Planning Department but could be shared with Members when significant updates and changes are made.
• Phasing of developments was ensured through close working with developers so milestones were met and community infrastructure projects delivered alongside. The SPDs would ensure comprehensive evidence and strategies were in place before planning applications came in to ensure the Council could attach relevant and specific conditions and permissions to ensure delivery of the whole site was achieved.
• It was noted that these decisions tonight were not about allocating land or the principle of whether development could take place, as those decisions had been taken in previous years; these decisions were about governing applications when they came forward.
• It was noted that these plans would enable other land to be protected and allowed the Council the strongest democratic power to push back on undesirable developments and ensure that the best possible suite of infrastructure was delivered alongside developments. 
• The Conservative Group noted their concerns about the principle of plans.
• A comprehensive discussion was held at Overview and Scrutiny regarding the Elton Metrolink station, and it was noted further discussions would take place with TfGM.

Simister Bowlee Development Framework Decision:

Subject to approval by Rochdale, Cabinet:

1.             Noted the responses to the public consultation and proposed post consultation revisions set out in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 to this report;

2.             Approved the revised SPD as the final version to be adopted and published; and

3.             Delegated authority to the Executive Director (Place) to make any minor, non-material editorial amendments to the SPD ahead of its final publication.

Walshaw Development Framework Decision:

Cabinet:

1. Noted the responses to the public consultation and proposed post consultation revisions set out in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 to this report;
2. Approved the revised SPD as the final version to be adopted and published; and
3. Delegated authority to the Executive Director (Place) to make any minor, non-material editorial amendments to the SPD ahead of its final publication.

Elton Reservoir Development Framework Decision:

Cabinet:

1. Noted the responses to the public consultation and proposed post consultation revisions set out in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 to this report;
2. Approved the revised SPD as the final version to be adopted and published;
3. Delegated authority to the Executive Director (Place) to make any minor, non-material editorial amendments to the SPD  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19

Report of the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Growth is attached.

The Chair advised that the Committee would consider the Simister and Bowlee, Elton Reservoir and Walshaw Development Frameworks as a continuation of the same item, given the common themes arising from the consultation responses, including transport, infrastructure, ecology, public engagement and planning policy considerations.

A report from Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Strategic Growth, had been circulated in advance of the meeting and Councillor O’Brien was invited to provide an overview of the report and the proposed amendments following consultation.

Councillor O’Brien outlined the purpose of the Development Frameworks and explained that the proposed amendments sought to strengthen existing positions, respond to consultation feedback and provide greater clarity for future planning applications. He advised that many of the changes reflected concerns raised by residents and stakeholders, whilst remaining consistent with the Places for Everyone strategy and wider planning policy requirements.

The Committee considered issues relating to access arrangements at Simister. Members heard that access through Simister village would be carefully managed and that Simister Lane was not considered suitable for significant construction traffic or as a primary access route. Councillor O’Brien explained that access arrangements would be developed in greater detail through subsequent planning stages but that the intention was to protect the village from inappropriate through traffic. Improvements would be required elsewhere, including around Bluebell Lane, and the Framework made clear that Simister Lane would not operate as a principal route into and out of the development.

Councillor Bayley questioned what measures would prevent motorists from using any future bus gate and suggested that enforcement measures and fines should be referenced. Councillor O’Brien acknowledged that while bus gates could be considered, a range of options remained available, including physical measures such as bollards. It was noted that detailed access arrangements would be further explored through subsequent design work, with an emphasis on balancing accessibility and protection of local communities.

Discussion took place regarding the differences in affordable housing percentages across the strategic allocations. Councillor O’Brien explained that these differences reflected existing and emerging planning policies together with viability considerations and did not represent different approaches to affordable housing provision.

Councillor Rydeheard raised concerns regarding the protection of Grade II listed assets and heritage features located within or close to development sites. In response, Councillor O’Brien advised that heritage considerations had been reflected throughout the revised documents and that the consultation process had strengthened several policy areas. He noted that the Development Frameworks reinforced the planning principles already established through Places for Everyone and would assist in ensuring that future planning applications appropriately considered heritage impacts.

Members discussed consultation responses relating to biodiversity and ecology. Councillor O’Brien acknowledged that development proposals could impact biodiversity and that the Council’s role was to ensure impacts were avoided where possible and otherwise mitigated or compensated in accordance with planning policy. It was noted that several consultation responses had sought stronger protection for ecological assets and that revisions had been made where appropriate. Officers explained that ecological considerations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106