Agenda item

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 would continue to be assessed through detailed planning applications supported by up-to-date survey information.

Questions were raised regarding infrastructure delivery and how future developer contributions would be managed. Councillor O’Brien advised that Development Frameworks provided a strategic mechanism for coordinating infrastructure requirements where multiple developers may be involved. This was intended to ensure fairness and proportionality, avoiding circumstances whereby one development carried an unreasonable burden or where infrastructure requirements were not adequately delivered. Members were advised that infrastructure contributions would ultimately be secured through planning obligations and legal agreements.

Councillor Rydeheard sought clarification regarding transport assessments and how the transport impacts of development would be monitored and enforced. Councillor O’Brien advised that planning applications would be required to assess both existing infrastructure capacity and the impact of development throughout its lifespan. Chris Logue added that the revised transport framework strengthened requirements around strategic transport planning and provided greater clarity regarding future expectations at the planning application stage.

The Committee then considered the consultation responses received in relation to Elton Reservoir. Members noted that 172 responses had been submitted and that the principal concerns raised related to Green Belt development, the evidence base supporting the proposals, consultation arrangements, ecology, transport and highways, Metrolink proposals, flood risk and drainage, heritage, healthcare provision, infrastructure pressures and the prioritisation of brownfield land.

In response to questions from Councillor Sheppard regarding consultation arrangements, officers advised that posters and leaflets had been distributed across a range of public locations throughout the borough, including libraries, leisure facilities, public parks, Tottington Centre and Bury Town Hall.

Consultation materials had also been available at drop-in sessions. Officers stated that the Council believed the consultation programme had been proportionate, accessible and compliant with the Statement of Community Involvement and relevant legislative requirements, whilst recognising that opportunities always exist to enhance engagement processes.

Members considered comments relating to ecology and the protection of important habitats and species. Officers advised that consultation feedback had resulted in updates to ecological information contained within the Framework, including strengthened references to priority habitats and ecological assets. Future planning applications would be required to be supported by detailed ecological assessments and demonstrate compliance with Biodiversity Net Gain requirements. Where impacts on habitats could not be avoided, appropriate mitigation or compensation measures would be required. Protected species, including great crested newts, bats, barn owls and other priority species, would be subject to detailed consideration during the planning process.

The Committee discussed consultation responses concerning the proposed Metrolink stop and associated park and ride facilities. Members referred to suggestions that alternative locations should be explored and concerns regarding impacts on nearby residents. Officers advised that the currently identified location was the most appropriate based on available information due to its relationship with the proposed site access arrangements. However, it was emphasised that the location remained indicative and would continue to be reviewed as proposals developed in conjunction with Transport for Greater Manchester.

Officers further explained that the wider transport hub was intended to encourage modal shift and integrate tram, bus, walking and cycling infrastructure. The park and ride element was intended to support reduced longer-distance car journeys and reflected existing provision elsewhere across the Metrolink network. Should the proposed location proceed, appropriate mitigation measures would be incorporated into the design to address concerns raised by residents.

Members also discussed brownfield land delivery and housing supply. Officers outlined the Council’s commitment to a brownfield preference approach and highlighted the extensive work undertaken with developers, registered providers, Homes England and Greater Manchester partners to bring forward difficult brownfield sites. Members were informed that approximately 88% of housing development delivered within the borough over the previous five years had been completed on brownfield land.

Questions were asked regarding progress at the East Lancashire Paper Mill site. Officers advised that the Council had worked closely with Homes England and the appointed developer, Morris Homes, to facilitate delivery of the site. Recent planning applications seeking amendments to existing permissions had been submitted and the Council understood that development was expected to commence shortly. The site formed part of the Council’s housing land supply and was expected to contribute approximately 125 dwellings during the period 2025 to 2030.

During discussion, Members raised concerns regarding surface water flooding, climate change and drainage impacts, particularly in parts of Radcliffe. Officers advised that such matters would require detailed assessment through future planning applications and would be considered alongside technical evidence provided by applicants and statutory consultees.

The Committee subsequently considered the Walshaw Development Framework consultation responses. Members noted that 176 responses had been received and that many of the issues raised mirrored those identified in relation to the other strategic allocations. Principal concerns included Green Belt development, the evidence base, consultation processes, transport and highways, ecology, flood risk and drainage, schools, healthcare facilities, open space provision, wellbeing, impacts on existing residents and businesses, and compliance with national and strategic planning policy.

Questions were raised regarding consultation activity specific to Walshaw and whether information had been distributed directly to affected residents. Officers confirmed that while posters and leaflets had been distributed through public locations and consultation events, no house-to-house leaflet distribution had taken place. It was noted that neighbouring residents would be formally consulted as part of any future planning application process.

Members discussed the overall effectiveness of the consultation exercises. Councillor O’Brien acknowledged that consultation processes can always be improved and highlighted the importance of maintaining constructive engagement with local communities. In response, members suggested that the Committee establish a task and finish group to review public consultation, communication and community involvement arrangements for future planning matters. There was broad support for exploring opportunities to improve engagement methods and ensure residents felt fully involved in decision-making processes.

Councillor Sheppard also sought clarification regarding how consultation responses had been assessed and whether any independent organisations had influenced amendments to the Frameworks. Officers advised that all representations had been reviewed and that some respondents had objected to the principle of development itself while others had proposed specific amendments. The revisions before the Committee reflected consideration of the issues raised and engagement with relevant stakeholders and consultees.

During consideration of responses relating to infrastructure and utilities, members referred to comments from United Utilities and concerns recorded within the consultation documentation. Chris Logue advised that United Utilities remained a key stakeholder in the process and that ongoing engagement had informed the updating of evidence and the refinement of infrastructure requirements within the Frameworks.

In concluding the item, members recognised the challenge of balancing housing delivery, infrastructure provision, environmental protection and community expectations. The Committee expressed support for further work to strengthen public engagement and communication in planning matters and requested that officers explore proposals for a task and finish group focused on consultation and community involvement.

Action

·         The Committee agreed to explore the establishment of a Task and Finish Group to review and improve the Council’s consultation and community engagement processes in relation to strategic planning matters.

Recommendations

The Committee resolved to recommend to Cabinet that:

1. The post-consultation revisions to the Development Frameworks be endorsed.

2. Overview and Scrutiny:
   • Notes the responses to the public consultation and the proposed post-consultation revisions set out in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of the report.
   • Notes the recommendations contained within the reports presented in the agenda pack.